Tag

Communication

1077: The Six Insights of Excellent Communicators with Ruth Milligan

By Podcasts No Comments

Ruth Milligan reveals the fundamental habits that drastically improve your speaking.

You’ll Learn

  1. The best way to improve at speaking—and why most don’t do it
  2. The foundational communication principles for better speaking
  3. How to stop saying “um” and other filler words

About Ruth

RUTH MILLIGAN is the founder of Articulation, a communications training and coaching firm. In her over 35 years of wide-ranging experience, she also founded and curated TEDxColumbus, one of the longest running TEDx programs in the world. She is a proud mom, quilter, and pickleball player.  

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

Pete Mockaitis
Ruth, welcome!

Ruth Milligan
Hello! How are you?

Pete Mockaitis
I’m good. Very good. I’m excited to chat about speaking. I’m very motivated, if you will, to be discussing it.

Ruth Milligan
No pun intended. There we go.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’d love to hear, you’ve been in the speaking game for quite a while, coaching, consulting, curating, speaking yourself. Can you tell me, what’s the most surprising and fascinating thing you’ve discovered about us humans and speaking over the course of your career?

Ruth Milligan
The most fascinating is that we don’t want to hear ourselves talk. And that’s a challenge because we want people to want to listen because that is the number one way to improve.

So, if you can get through that threshold and get through that kind of troublesome sticky spot in your head, that you’re not going to die when you listen to yourself, and that no one actually has to know when you do, it can be very, very, very, very helpful.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, let’s speak right into the heart of that. It’s the most effective way to improve, and yet we don’t want to do it. Can you share why don’t we want to do it? And how can we get over that?

Ruth Milligan
I think our perception of ourselves is always different than what we see. So, for instance, I’ll listen back to every podcast, every recording, and I see my sister because we have a lot of similarities. And I think, “Ooh, do I want to be like my sister?” My sister is fine. Don’t get me wrong. But you’re like, “Oh, I want to be me.”

And then sometimes it’s, “Ooh, do I really sound like that?” and we surprise ourselves. And then that’s hard because, at least I believe, we say, “Ooh,” that’s not what we want our audiences to hear. And so, there’s this disconnect that we have to sort of bring together as to, “What do we want to be perceived and seen as? And how are we doing that?” “And are they this far apart or are they this far apart?”

And the best way to do that is habits, practice, watching, listening back. And if you just haven’t done it, it’s a little cringy. Have you listened? I bet when you started your podcast, you started listening back to yourself, right? What did you learn when you started that?

Pete Mockaitis

Oh, I did. Well, it’s funny, well, from lots of keynote speeches, I listened and watched those recordings as well. And so, I’ve had to go both ways. And at times I think, “Well, this is so fun and entertaining. I wish more speeches were just like this.”

And other times I’m a little disappointed like, “Oh, Pete, I can tell you didn’t actually do your research, your homework, your practice as much here, and the audience suffered as a result.” And so, I feel some guilt, shame there.

Ruth Milligan
Correct, because you’re playing through your head, “Oh, I coulda, shoulda, woulda,” and you can’t dial back time. You can’t have that time back.

Pete Mockaitis
Right. Although, of course, if you listened to your recordings before the big audience presentation, you can. You can fix it.

Ruth Milligan
Correct. That’s it. And I think you can’t draw it back, and there is a little bit of regret. I don’t live with a lot of regret, but I think that in those moments you say, “Oh, it could have been…” You have to work through those emotions. And so, that’s what happens when you watch yourself is you’re going through a bunch of emotions that you normally don’t experience. And so, it’s easier just to not do it.

Pete Mockaitis

Yeah, boy, now you’re bringing me back to, I think, the most troubling recording ever. I remember I did a whole school assembly. It was at Hayworth High School, if anyone was there. And I was just starting my career as a professional speaker. And I had mostly spoken in the student audience context at leadership conferences where they selected one student from each high school.

And in those contexts, I was crushing it. On the speaker evaluations, I was number one out of 20 plus. So, I thought, “I’m great at speaking. I’m down with the young people.” And then in this different environment of high school students, I bombed. It was really spooky. I asked the principal for an endorsement. And then he told me in a lengthy email how terrible I was and how they wish they could have gotten their money back.

Ruth Milligan
In an email?

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, yeah.

Ruth Milligan
Oh, bad practice.

Pete Mockaitis
I was shocked. And so, I shared it with a speaker-mentor friend, Mawi, episode number one. And, really, he’s so good, he said, “Well, Pete, it’s really great that you’re doing this because a lot of people just don’t even ever want to look at it.” And it was very helpful in terms of rewatching it together. And he said, “Well, first of all…” Go ahead.

Ruth Milligan
No, I was going to say together. That’s a very important word.

Pete Mockaitis
Watching it together, it was so useful, he said, “Well, first of all, Pete, we got to take some of what the principal said with a grain of salt, because he said, ‘I heard nothing about bad things.’” This is a direct quote for the email, “And yet I’m seeing multiple occasions of this audience laughing. So, clearly, it was not 100 % bad.” Okay, cool. So, we’ve got some perspective. “And also note…”

And then we really got into it, he was like, “Hey, Pete, they don’t even understand what that word means. It’s, like, you could be speaking gibberish to this audience in this place. Also, tell me about the setup and with the client.” And it’s like, “Yes, no matter what happens, it’s going to be your fault, so you have to grab the context, the information, the goals from them even when they’re being difficult in saying, ‘Oh, I guess that sounds good.’”

And so, it was so useful going through it. And it might have been painful, but, in some ways, I was just so spooked and surprised to have missed the mark so epically, the most ever in my life in the speaking environment that I just had to see what the heck happened here with a pro.

Ruth Milligan
The biggest extra learning that we’ve had, since particularly we wrote the book, was one research study assembled all the other research studies on feedback, like 500, I don’t know, maybe millions, I don’t know. But there was one central thing, and if your listeners are listening to anything about feedback, this is it.

When you speak and someone hears you, you get to go first in giving yourself feedback before they do. Because when they’re giving you feedback, they’re the ones learning. When you are the one first reflecting or giving yourself feedback, you’re learning. And learning is the goal to do better. If I said to you, “Hey, Pete, that really sucked,” like your teacher or your principal, that’s how I feel and that’s my opinion. And you live in choice, like every audience does, to accept or reject it. You can believe it or not.

But if I said, “Hey, Pete, how do you think you did?” You’re forced to think through, “Did I prepare enough? How did that go? What did I feel like?” And I may not have to say anything to you.

Pete Mockaitis
I see. So that’s the best practice when giving feedback is to ask first and…

Ruth Milligan
And the person who’s giving feedback actually says, “Tell me how you feel” first. Full stop. It seems kind of silly and rudimentary, but it’s so powerful because 90% of what you’re going to tell me is what I might want to tell you, but because you’ve come to the conclusion, you’re more likely to want to fix it.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, and if you do discover, “Oh, there’s epic blind spots here,” well, then it’s probably also still effective because then there’s an emotional component of huge surprise like, “Whoa.” And then it’ll probably stick even more, even though you’re sharing the same things.

Ruth Milligan
So, can I tell a quick story?

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, yes.

Ruth Milligan

I gave some feedback to a speaker after a big presentation practice day. We were at dinner. And I’ll call him Tom. I said, “Hey, Tom, do you know what an umm-er is?” And he says, “No, I don’t know what an umm-er is.” And I said, “Well, okay. An umm-er is this, somebody who uses um’s, filler words.” And I said, “Tom, do you know you’re an umm-er?” And he said, “I am?” And I said, “Yeah.” He goes, “Like a few times?” And I was like, “Hmm, like every fourth word.”

And he really wasn’t interested in the feedback. And everyone in the room heard it. Everyone in the room looked at me, and said, “Help him.” So, two days later, we come back for another round and he comes barreling in with the same umming, not even attempting. And I said, “Hey, Tom, do you remember the recording I sent you? Did you have a chance to listen to a minute of it?” Because I’m looking for him to hear himself, right, versus me just telling him.

He’s like, “No, no, I didn’t need to listen to that. I just decided I’m going to be more conversational.” “How’s that working out for you?” He was solving the problem he thought he had, not the problem he had. And I couldn’t, at that point, you say, “Okay, I did my best.”

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that’s illustrative, because I think we all do that, or can do that, to some extent, in that, being more conversational is a thing that might be effective, but it’s a different solution to a different thing.

Ruth Milligan
Correct.

Pete Mockaitis
But it’s interesting how in our brains, especially if we’re not a master of a thing yet, we can conflate, because I think, in many ways, mastery of something is largely about the capacity to distinguish between nuances. And if you’re not yet mastering, you’re going to think, “Oh, umming means not conversational.” And I’ve done that in other domains in terms of…

Ruth Milligan
So, what would that mean to you if you heard, “I made it more conversational”? Like, you’re a conversationalist for a living. Like, I couldn’t even make the connection to why he thought getting rid of a filler word would be solved by becoming more casual. Anyway, we don’t have to dissect it, but like it is interesting.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, yeah, there’s an interesting link there and…

Ruth Milligan
Yeah, I think it’s illustrative of the gap between what we believe we need and what we do. And if we don’t watch ourselves, we’re going to pick the wrong thing.

Pete Mockaitis

I think I’ve come to learn in life, generally speaking, if we want to advance or improve a thing, a domain, we’ll probably require either time and/or money, and/or outside expertise, and/or confronting our own weakness, foibles, mistakes or so.

So, I would just say that, in a way, humility itself is a resource we can deploy to improve on a thing and sometimes it might be unpleasant but it can save you time and money. So, it’s like, “Humble yourself and watch the recording.”

Ruth Milligan
Exactly. And I promise, no one’s ever died. I mean, there are things that we do that are painful in life. That really shouldn’t be one of them, but it is.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, thank you. Well, right off the bat, that’s great stuff.

Ruth Milligan
There you go. That’s all we got. Are we done? I’m just kidding.

Pete Mockaitis
We could be. But you got a book here, The Motivated Speaker.

Ruth Milligan
We do.

Pete Mockaitis
And you start the book, The Motivated Speaker, by discussing, this is so meta, the concept of a threshold concept. So, what do you mean by this term? And why is that important?

Ruth Milligan
Sure. About 10 years ago, two guys, Meyer and Land, put a label on the thing that is recursive, troublesome, sticky, and when you encounter it, you can’t go back, you don’t unsee it. It’s that transformative kind of liminal space, you have to reach for it. And when you’re on the other side of it, everything else you do becomes better.

So, to the title of your podcast, How to be Awesome at Your Job, there are threshold concepts about business. There are threshold concepts about podcasting. There are threshold concepts that you had to learn certain things in order to be really good at this podcast game. And if you didn’t learn them, you would be average at it.

Our mentor who named the concepts for learning to write, we asked her, we said, “Does anyone ever name the concepts for learning to speak?” And she said, “No.” So, she took us under her wing for the better part of a year, and the only thing we wanted to do was just be better coaches. We wanted to understand, when somebody called us with a problem, we had an anchor to say, “What haven’t you learned yet?” Not just, “What are you doing wrong?” And those are two different things.

“I can hear you say ‘um,’ but what haven’t you learned yet? You haven’t learned that breath is a central character in the story of getting rid of your filler words. You haven’t learned that the habit of working out of that is the threshold concept for replacing your filler words.”

So, we cut the cloth a little differently on this communicator versus communication, the book is about the human as the communicator, not about the thing that you’re doing, like producing. It’s not about presentations. It’s not about script writing. It’s not about slide design. It is about the things that you need to do to be an awesome speaker.

Pete Mockaitis
And that’s really an interesting distinction right there. It’s, “Hey, knock off the vocal pauses. Cut it out.” But rather a threshold concept, “What haven’t you learned yet?” Like, the threshold of a door, it’s like, “Oh, once I enter through this, this has been opened up for me.”

Ruth Milligan
It’s a portal. Totally, a portal.

Pete Mockaitis
And so, could you give us an example of a threshold concept, like a there’s a time before we learned it, and then we had to get it, and then we got it, and then it’s transformative?

Ruth Milligan
Sure. These are things that we have encountered forever, but they just haven’t been organized or named in a way that they’re easily accessible. So, we didn’t create them or discover them, but we named them. Very big distinction. And so, here’s an example. If my client, the umm-er, had understood that nobody’s a natural speaker. If he said, “Ruth, you’re a natural speaker,” I’d say that’s BS. I’m actually not a natural speaker. I’m a well-practiced speaker.

Nobody comes out speaking out of the womb. We all have to learn the habits of speaking. If he had appreciated that he has to work out of that habit, like he worked into it, he would have taken the few tips I gave him and walked around saying, “Okay, I have to do this thing.” I gave him a specific thing to do. He didn’t do it. And that’s the habit.

So, the first one is speaking is habitual, not natural. We don’t just become a speaker because our mouth is open. We become a speaker because we practice at our genre with our audiences, to our goals, with our content, with our story.

So, there are six of them. They’re all in the same sort of category of things that you obviously have to encounter. And once you do, things become a lot clearer as to how to become that great speaker you want to become.

Pete Mockaitis
I see. So, a threshold concept, speaking is habitual, not natural, that is a threshold concept insofar as prior to internalizing this, you are kind of stuck.

Ruth Milligan
Right. And I might say, “Oh, I can’t be that speaker.” Like, you might say to yourself, “Oh, yeah, that person is such a natural. I could never be that way.” And our argument is that’s a lie. It’s a myth. And with the right practice, like anything, you can become better at it.

And so, to dial down that, like, “I can’t do it” to “How can I do it?” well, the first thing you need to do is realize that if you practice. So, here’s a good example. We did like a practice podcast about five months ago, and I came out with, like, a bunch of ums. I was mortified. This is my business. And I walked around for a week and I just did the trick that I know that I need to do and I’m happy to share it with you.

Every time I spoke, I worked my way out of it. A few days later, it was good. What is it, 21 days to a better habit, generally? But if you don’t know you have the habit, and you don’t know how to get out of it, then you can’t practice.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I think that, well, I believe that, that great speaking is habitual and not natural. For those who are skeptical, can you prove it, Ruth? I mean, you’ve got many clients who have improved, but let’s just imagine, who were some of the greatest speakers throughout history, or in our modern era? And did they, in fact, have to build up a lot of habits?

Ruth Milligan
I’ll give you one. Nikki Glaser reported, before she gave her opening monologue at the Golden Globes, she practiced 94 times. I forget how long it was, six or seven minutes. She counted 94 times. She shows up and she doesn’t miss a beat, but she doesn’t want to take any risk.

Even though she might’ve even also been on a teleprompter, she still practiced 94 times because, in comedy, and her genre, this is a genre, us speaking on a podcast, Nikki has got a genre, timing is everything. And if she’s not practicing that timing, she’s not going to land the joke, right?

Pete Mockaitis
Yes.

Ruth Milligan
Martin Luther King, actually, his talk, most consequential talk, I believe, punctuates with the right timing to make the points, “We’re moving from the heat and oppression of today to the oasis of freedom of tomorrow.” He didn’t say, “We’re moving from the heat and oppression of today to the…” It has intentionality. It has stickiness. It has suspense. It has inflection. I promise you he practiced that.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so I think comedians are a great example because, in a way, they do seem very natural to us, “Oh, they’re just so funny. That guy, he’s just so funny.” So, how much are they practicing those sets?

Ruth Milligan
Here’s a good example. Last month, I saw Tina Fey and Amy Poehler together in their tour. And at one point, Amy came out on stage and said, “Okay, everybody, this is the point where I’m working out some new content.” And she stopped a few times, and, “Oh, got to work on that. That’s not working out.”

Like, she’s trying to see if what she’s saying will land. She is writing in the moment. So, I think that humor is one of the hardest genres to write or deliver, personally, because there’s so much expectation from the audience to get the joke, to get the context, and to say, like, “I’m smarter because I got it. I feel smarter because I understand the humor and it made me laugh. It me feel a certain way.”

Pete Mockaitis

And I’ve heard anecdotes that it can, indeed, be well over a hundred times of trying, cutting, refining, refining the material.

Ruth Milligan
Yeah. And so, to think that somebody can show up on a Monday, and say, “Oh, let’s give a talk on a Tuesday and wing it and make it work,” is a little bit of, “Oh, you must be superhuman because I don’t know anybody that can do that,” unless they have been spending, you know. Here’s a good example. We’ve been spending the better part of 20 months with our content. I should be able to, and can if you’d quiz me, I have one line for each of the concepts.

It took us months and months to write and refine, and write and refine, and get to that quick point that you would understand that still gets to the point. So, we can’t shortcut these things, is the bottom line.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so there we have it. First and foremost, habitual not natural. Can we hear the other five concepts?

Ruth Milligan
Sure. And I will do it with one sentence each to see if I’ve got this down. Ready?

Pete Mockaitis
All right.

Ruth Milligan
Speaking is social. Your audience is always making meaning of what you’re saying. You’re rarely ever just talking to yourself, and if you are, it’s probably before coffee and it’s a babble. If your audience speaks Spanish, they don’t want to hear it in French. That goes for jargon. It goes for acronyms. Your audience is also, it’s fleeting, meaning your audience is there and then they’re not, meaning your words are not going to stick. They’re going to fade. Speaking is social.

Speaking is embodied. If I asked you to pick up the book and read a sentence, which I’m not going to, you would be reading the written word, versus embodying it, delivering it, speaking it. My favorite embodiment is, if I said to you these words, you would know who the speaker was because he embodies this pace and tone and rhythm, “Last night, Michelle and I, we went to the movies.” You know who I’m talking about?

Pete Mockaitis
So, Michelle, so I will go with Barack Obama.

Ruth Milligan
Right.

Pete Mockaitis
But what I remember most about Barack Obama is that he’ll go slow and then he speeds it up.

Ruth Milligan
There you go. If somebody had written that script for him, which would have said, like, “Last night, my wife, Michelle, and I went to the Lennox Theatre to see ‘The Terminator’ movie and we had a great time.” That would have been what somebody might have written. See the difference?

So, anyway. So, number three, speaking is embodied. We have to bring our whole, and we have to get it off the page. We can’t just, like, if reading it is not speaking it, so.

Pete Mockaitis
The AI will destroy us all.

Ruth Milligan
Next one. Speaking comes in many genres. This is a genre. Podcasting, keynotes, convention speeches, they’re all different genres, and they have different rules and conventions. And for the most part, the host, you, are setting the rules. So, you tell me how much time we have. You tell me what channel we want to be on. You tell me what topics we want to discuss. Same thing with any conference, any event. So, speaking comes in many genres, and you need to know the conventions to be successful.

Speaking is messy. So, if I ask you, Pete, “What’s your life story?” You might say, “Oh, where should I start?” And the problem is there are many places to start and many places to finish. The iteration of your content, what to get in, what to get out. “How do I take that 100 pounds of information and shove it into a 10-pound bag?” requires the iteration.

Speaking requires feedback, and yours first, mainly first. And if you don’t want to listen to yourself, then you’re going to probably not hit that threshold of true learning.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And so, each of these are threshold concepts insofar as, if we continue to live in the alternative, the opposite of them, we will stagnate. If we reject that speaking is embodied and we live our lives reading scripts, then we’re stuck.

Ruth Milligan
We are stuck. I think you may be stuck, your ideas will get stuck, your pitches will get stuck, people won’t want to listen to you. I’ll tell you a very quick anecdote. I coached a big tech guy, last month, foreign country, heavy accent. Got him to make some better enunciation so he could be understood.

We worked hard, content, three or four sessions. He did really well. Two weeks later, he gets invited to an internal audience of executives by someone else. He takes none of that practice or habits with him, and he completely fails. And the executive that invited him said, “I’m never inviting him again to anything.”

So, the downside to not really embodying what he had learned and taking it into practice was you don’t even get invited anymore. And, therefore, then your career, “Oh, I can’t put him on stage.” It’s actually what I call a shaded habit. You have something in a small dark room that you do and everyone goes, “Oh, that’s just Pete. He just does that.”

And then you take Pete to a big illuminated stage without support, and Pete’s still doing that, and you say, “Oh, my gosh, didn’t we want to give Pete some coaching before that?” Because now everyone sees it and that’s hard to unsee. And that bridge between sort of the shaded and illuminated is the space that most people don’t appreciate. That’s where you can go through the thresholds, literally, figuratively, and find better practice so that you are invited back and your career doesn’t get thwarted.

I have coached, Pete, many, many, many dozens and dozens of executives whose careers have been largely thwarted because they ignored how hard this is and they didn’t prepare. And they showed up not prepared and embarrassed somebody. Most of the calls I get are from CEOs that say, “That guy didn’t do so well with my client. Can you help?” because the CEO is embarrassed, and they’re feeling a risk for that relationship because that person, who they put in front of that client, true story, the client is very bristly, didn’t like the information, wasn’t a good quarter.

And the executive just keeps throwing more and more and more data at him. And I suggested, “Maybe he just wants to be heard. He doesn’t need any more data. So, can you just maybe stop talking for a minute?” And he’s like, “Oh, I don’t know. I’m supposed to, like…” And you can tell he’s like one of those guys with, like, a briefcase full, decks and decks and decks of data.

And so, he tried it. He said it felt uncomfortable, but the client calmed way down, felt heard, and actually didn’t need anything more. Just needed some space. So, sometimes we don’t read the room right. Sometimes we just need to stop.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, careers thwarted. Well, to the point about, well, I guess now I’m just thinking, like, it’s a little spooky because often we never get the feedback that we need. And so, our career can be thwarted, we don’t even know why. We find ourselves on a performance improvement plan or fired with very vague feedback, which you can’t even call feedback, like, “You know what, it just wasn’t the right fit.” “You know what, we’re trimming costs.” It’s like, “Well, why am I being fired, not the other guy?” “Well, you know, we got to downsize.”

Ruth Milligan
I’ll add this. What about the interview that they give you no feedback on? And they just say, “No, thanks.” And you say, “I got to the third round. Something happened.” I have a son who’s starting to interview for internships, and the first round they gave him no feedback. It’s like, “Well, how are you supposed to learn? You know, you’re 19, how are you supposed to learn?”

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, and it could be pretty brutal in that context, if the interviewer is like, “Not my concern. Our concern is picking a winner. We don’t care about you and your life and what happens to you.”

Ruth Milligan
“Even though we just put you through a month of interviews and we just told you, you know, like…” And so, the learning, I think this goes back to, like, “What can we learn in these moments? And are we open to it?” And it’s tricky when you’re really busy and you have a thousand applicants, you don’t want to take time, “Ah, not my problem. Not my monkey. Not my circus. Just don’t want you.”

Pete Mockaitis
Well, just as a side note to that, I would say I’ve been in both sides of the interviewing table and I, well, I’m into learning, so I love it when they ask for feedback because then it’s like, “Oh, well, first of all, I know that you want it, because I can’t just assume that everybody wants it. And it is time consuming.” So, one of my favorite instances, I rejected someone for a role. This was in college. And it was for a student consulting organization, because I’m cool like that.

And he asked me for feedback. I was so glad he asked. I gave him lots of feedback. He returned to get into that group the following year, and then went to consult at McKinsey. It’s like, “There you go. That’s hard to get into those consulting posse.” And it was awesome because he asked and I was glad that he asked. So, I guess that’s a tidbit right there. Go ahead and ask.

Ruth Milligan
And I do think, by the way, just to this point, we actually coach people to say, ask for the feedback you want, “How did I do in that opening? How were my transitions? Did it go too long? Did the story work?” I’ve had to give people feedback, like, “You’re a little tone deaf. Like, that story is not good for this audience. You might want to pick something that’s a little less, I don’t know, privileged or a little less offensive.”

Pete Mockaitis
“Something a little less offensive.”

Ruth Milligan
A little less offensive.

Pete Mockaitis
“Not zero offensive but just a touch.”

Ruth Milligan
Yeah. Like, coaching so many years of TEDx, we’d have people with such good ideas, and every now and then you’d get somebody who’s like, “Oh, you haven’t had a lot of feedback lately, I can tell. Okay, we’ll go there. It’s okay.”

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, it’s so key to ask. And I think you’re right in terms of being more specific about your request, it’s like, “So, how did I do?” It’s like, “Well, I don’t know if you actually want to know, or if you’re just looking for some affirmation, validation, because you’re nervous.” So, I’ll be like, “Ah, good job.” So, it’s hard to know if that’s even sincerely what they want. But when they ask it specifically, it’s like, “Oh, okay, you’re actually keen to know this, so we can go there.”

Ruth Milligan
So, Pete, here’s a question I’ve asked a few podcast hosts. When you have to edit out, your editor has to do an extra big job of editing out filler words and what we call disfluencies, a fancy term, do you ever want to tell the speaker how many you took out?

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, well, I don’t even think about it now because my editor just does it and we just go.

Ruth Milligan
Well, it’s just a curiosity because you actually have data.

Pete Mockaitis

I do.

Ruth Milligan
You have real data. And then I suggest that maybe you send them both versions. You say, “Here’s your before and here’s your after. If you want to watch, you can.” But at least, that to me, like, the before and after of any recording is the money shot because I can hear what I sounded like here, “Do I want to be in audience A or audience B?” But in these moments that are recorded and you have data, it’s always curious, like, “Does anybody care?”

Pete Mockaitis
Well, so Ruth, we got our threshold concepts and a top thing is watch, listen to the recording. You’re not going to want to, but that’s the thing that’s going to do it. Can you give us any of your other top dos and don’ts before we shift gears and hear about your favorite things?

Ruth Milligan
Yeah, I guess the other one is, don’t underestimate the power of breath. Everything about breath is what informs pace, suspense, articulation, the ability to finish a sentence strong. If my name is Ruth Milligan, and I run out of breath, I’m going to get really high and then, all of a sudden, I’m going to finish up.

But if my name is Ruth Milligan, and then I get to finish strong because I’m drawing from my diaphragm. So, knowing where to breathe from your diaphragm, not up here. If you breathe from up here, it’s called stacked breathing. I can’t really draw, like, think of it like a crochet hook. I can’t really draw the right volume of breath out.

Breath replaces the filler words. Try to say an um on the count of three while taking a breath. Ready? One, two, three. You cheated.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, but you do got to try. I’m no natural.

Ruth Milligan
So, I walked around for that week and I just took better breaths. I was more conscious about my breaths and my ums went away, the ands, the so’s, whatever. So, that’s the collection of things to draw on whenever you feel as if your speaking isn’t as strong, as confident, as measured or inflection. Look to your breath patterns. Look to your breath habits.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Thank you. Any other top don’ts?

Ruth Milligan
Don’t think that you write like you speak. I cannot impress upon this one enough. I can tell within about 15 or 20 seconds if someone is reading me what they wrote versus delivering. We don’t ever want to be read to, unless we are like Isabel Allende or one of these great authors who comes to read me a chapter of your book.

I remember going to TED one year and actually Isabel Allende was on stage and she came and read, and I just could not get over, like, how they let her read. They don’t let anyone read anything. There’s no teleprompters, there’s no notes, you know, years and years of being in that genre. And then I thought to myself, “She’s not speaking. She’s actually reading her written words.”

And then John McWhorter was the one who really broke open the threshold concept for me that, like, we write in very long sentences and we speak in very short sentences. And when you are writing to speak, you don’t usually write the right way. And I had a presentation we coached last week, a panel discussion, and someone took, I think, about 10 slides of different, she was working up to talking about jazz in schools, and she was almost poetry.

She kind of showed a progression of what music does, and just used one word per image. It was just this punctuated, like 10 words. And the audience got quiet as a mouse. They were wrapped, because she wasn’t talking on, on, on, on, on. And she grabbed everyone and then she had them for her next four minutes of her presentation. It was really beautiful.

And she used long pauses, very curated imagery, perfect words. She nailed it. So, you don’t always have to be in the prose section. You can pull from things that we’ve learned from poetry, too.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, lovely. Well, now could you share a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Ruth Milligan
“Don’t make it about you.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite study or experiment or piece of research?

Ruth Milligan
Yeah, my most recent one, for sure, is this one, the intersection between speaking, stress, and time.

Pete Mockaitis
What do we know from that study?

Ruth Milligan
We know that when you’re in stress, when your amygdala has a response, actually, time goes like this.

Pete Mockaitis
It expands and contracts.

Ruth Milligan
Correct. And it gets slower, you’re just, like, “Well, I have a lot more time than I think.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite book?

Ruth Milligan
It is this one.

Pete Mockaitis
Several Short Sentences About Writing, Verlyn Klinkenborg.

Ruth Milligan
I just can’t love it enough.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite tool, something you use to be awesome at your job?

Ruth Milligan
My voice memos. Hands down. Full stop.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite habit?

Ruth Milligan
I actually love to lift weights. It solves so many problems in such a short amount of time.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And is there a key nugget you share that really connects and resonates with folks, they quote it back to you often?

Ruth Milligan
I think the one I said earlier is the one that I think sticks with me, which is when you’re in front of an audience and you’re feeling nervous, stop making it about yourself. Make it about the audience. And a lot of that anxiety can wash away when you say be of service to them. You’re here to support them. And then you’re taking the focus off of yourself. And a lot of that frenetic nervousness doesn’t have a place anymore.

I had to use it 12 years ago in a sticky situation and it really stuck for me. And every time I have a speaker come in that sort of hamster wheel, I say, “Stop making it about yourself.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Ruth Milligan
I would encourage them to start at TheMotivatedSpeaker.com. It takes you to our larger website. There you can find all the links to the books, all of our podcast recordings, including yours soon, all of our blogs, and everything about our training, coaching, and what we do to help support speakers every day.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Ruth Milligan
Go find one thing to work on. Just one. Everyone that we coach, even the most seasoned speakers, have one thing to work on. Listen to yourself. Ask for feedback. Just pick one. We actually can’t do many things at once, improve on many things at once. And it might be that shaded habit, that when it becomes illuminated, it could be the thing that’s keeping you back from being awesome at your job.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Ruth, thank you.

Ruth Milligan

Thank you for having me. This was really fun.

1074: How to Improve Negotiations–without Compromising–with Dr. Joshua N. Weiss

By Podcasts No Comments

Dr. Joshua N. Weiss discusses the major misconceptions surrounding negotiations—and offers five steps to build your confidence and resilience as a negotiator.

You’ll Learn

  1. The big negotiation mistake most people make
  2. The mental reframe that helps you negotiate better
  3. The five-step strategy to reviving stalled negotiations

About Josh

Dr. Joshua N. Weiss is a renowned negotiation and conflict resolution and leadership expert. As a Senior Fellow at the Harvard Negotiation Project and co-founder of the Global Negotiation Initiative at Harvard University, Dr. Weiss brings unparalleled expertise to his field. He also directs the MS in Leadership and Negotiation program at Bay Path University and runs a private consulting firm, offering tailored negotiation and conflict resolution, and leadership solutions for businesses, organizations, international entities, governments, and individuals.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

  • Strawberry.me. Claim your $50 credit and build momentum in your career with Strawberry.me/Awesome
  • Plaud.Ai. Use the code AWESOME for a discount on your order
  • Rula. Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at Rula.com/Awesome

Pete Mockaitis
Josh, welcome!

Joshua Weiss
Thanks so much, Pete. It’s a pleasure to be with you.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to be chatting and I can’t resist, I’d like for you to start us off with a thrilling high-stakes negotiation tale.

Joshua Weiss
Well, there have been a lot of them. And I think, in general, probably my favorite one is that I was working with a team of people to kind of help them prepare for a merger, a potential merger. And they had asked me, because they were trying to sort of build their capacity for their own negotiations, so they asked me to sit in the room and give them advice at different periods during the process, helping them to reset, to think about where to go from there and things along those lines.

And so, we did our preparation, came into the meeting, and the other side, there were three guys, and we had three people on our side. And the first gentlemen sat down, slammed his briefcase on the table, and decided to sort of say, “Look, here’s the offer. It’s a take it or leave it kind of thing.” And after sort of pushing that onto the table, he just looked at us all and said, “Well?”

And I had talked to my team about sort of the idea of trying to get into problem-solving mode and to thinking together with the other side about how you could do this as best and to try to find things of value that might exist that we are not aware of. And that was not the negotiating approach that the other side was taking.

And the lead negotiator was getting more and more sort of agitated. Like, he just sort of felt like we’re going to put this on the table to take it or leave it kind of thing.

And he’s like, “You’ve got 10 seconds to decide whether you want to do this or not.” And so, they were like, “Well, if that’s the scenario, you know, we’re going to leave it.” And it was interesting because his two colleagues were on either side and they were kind of looking at him like they didn’t really know what he was doing. And they definitely were not aligned with the approach he was taking.

So, after 10 seconds, he’s like, “Well, fine.” So, he starts throwing his papers back in his briefcase and he stands up and storms out, basically opens the door and slams it behind him. And what we realized was that, in his theater or performance, he actually walked into a walk-in closet instead of actually leaving the room.

And the funny thing was he stayed in there for what seemed like a long time. It was probably like 30, 45 seconds because I think he was too embarrassed to come out. And so, the lead on our team looked at me and he turns around, and he’s like, “Is this an opportunity?” And I said, “Yes, it is.”

So, he swings around back to the other two guys, he’s like, “Listen, I think we can do this differently. I don’t know what you guys had in mind, but here’s our sort of initial thinking.” And the other two guys are, like, listening, taking it all in. And the guy sort of slinks out of the closet after that and is really sidelined because they had started a conversation.

And, ultimately, they ended up finding a way forward and finding a deal, but it required that kind of theatrics to go awry for something to happen. So, there’s things like that. And the rule in negotiation, in general, is expect the unexpected.

Pete Mockaitis
Wow. That story is so wild. It’s, like, if that happened to be in real life, I would wonder, “Am I having a dream right now? Is this real life? Or am I currently dreaming?”

Joshua Weiss
It was pretty darn funny. And sometimes it just takes those little “unexpecteds” to change a process, and to seize on it, so.

Pete Mockaitis
And I think that’s perfect. I mean, wow, what a metaphor. When the take it or leave it guy is stuck in a closet, chat with his colleagues instead.

Joshua Weiss
Right. There you go. That’s the lesson.

Pete Mockaitis
And it’s funny, this is like Michael Scott buffoonery, you know, “What does the internet tell me about negotiating? Ooh, yeah, that’s the secret move. I’m going to do that.”

Joshua Weiss
That’s right.

Pete Mockaitis
And it’s not so handy. Well, thank you for that. That’s fun. I’d love to hear. So, you’ve been in the game for quite a while. What do you think is the most surprising discovery you’ve made about us humans and negotiating over the course of your many engagements?

Joshua Weiss
To be very honest, most people have no idea how to do it. The reality is that very few people get knowledge and skills about negotiation. And so, they might learn it from Michael Scott. They might learn it from the news. They might learn it, which is all of the wrong places to try to learn this. And the other thing I would say, too, is that there’s a lot of people who are like, “I don’t negotiate.” I’m like, “Actually, you negotiate all day, every day.”

Anytime you’re trying to get somebody to do something you would like them to do, if you’re trying to create some kind of an agreement, whatever it looks like, you’re negotiating. And that can be at work with your bosses and your colleagues and the people that work for you, or it can be with your spouses, or, as we were talking about before we came on, your kids, but also in the world around you. So, we do this all the time and it’s really quite striking to me that so many people don’t know how to negotiate, and what they know about negotiation usually leads them astray.

Pete Mockaitis
So, we don’t know how to negotiate. That’s quite a statement in that, on the one hand, it’s like, “Well, of course, because very few of us have had formal training in it.” But, on the other hand, it’s like, “Well, if we’re negotiating all the time, every day, wouldn’t it be as natural to us as breathing, talking, walking, and yet it is not?”

Joshua Weiss

It’s not because to be effective in negotiation, like if you think about most of your jobs, right, and how to be awesome at work, it requires strategy, it requires thinking, it requires preparation to do things well, and negotiation is no different. And I think that’s the key. You know, lots of people engage in it. The question is, “Are you really learning from it? Are you learning best practices?”

Somebody asked me the other day, “Do you really think you can learn negotiation from a book?” And I said, “Well, there’s really two primary ways that we learn. One is experience and one is through education and learning and knowledge.” And I think it is critical that you learn both. In addition to getting involved in negotiations and doing a lot of training, I teach and I run a master’s program.

And one of the things the students tell me after they take the first class, which is an introduction to negotiation, they’re like, “I had no idea what you could know, all of the aspects that you need to know to be an effective negotiator, the strategy, the analysis, the skillsets, all of that.” And so, their perspective on negotiation, even though they’ve been doing it for a long time, changes dramatically because they become aware of concepts and ideas and dynamics that they really hadn’t thought about.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that’s very intriguing. And could you give us an example of a concept, or a dynamic, an idea that is just like a revelation eye-opener for people like, “Whoa, I never thought of that, Josh”?

Joshua Weiss
So, if you ask people, “What’s the first word or two that comes to mind when we hear the word negotiation?” usually, one of the words that is uttered is compromise. And I don’t believe that compromise is an effective way to negotiate. In fact, it’s kind of a lazy way to negotiate. And most people are like, “Well, wait a minute. What do you mean? When we get stuck, I often will say, ‘Well, let’s just split the difference.’”

I’m like, “Okay. But have you really thought through and understood what’s going on in your negotiation before you actually compromise?” It’s actually why a lot of people don’t like to negotiate because they perceive that what they’re supposed to be doing at the negotiating table is giving away something of significant importance in order to reach an agreement. And that is not how you negotiate.

Negotiation is not about reaching agreement. And that may also surprise people. It’s about meeting your objective as best as possible. And if you have the metric or if the bar is that, “My purpose in this negotiation is to reach agreement,” it’s not hard to reach an agreement. You can give away all kinds of things to reach an agreement. It’s the wrong bar, though. What you’re doing is you go into a negotiation and you have an objective that you’re trying to meet.

And if you can reach an agreement that gets you there in the best way possible, great. And if you can’t and you realize that, that it’s better to walk away, that’s actually success because it’s about meeting your objectives. And compromise rarely meets your objective. Most people listening probably have negotiated, given up something of great importance to reach an agreement, and then walked out of the room and said, “Ugh, I can’t believe I did that. That doesn’t feel good. That doesn’t feel like what I wanted from this process.”

And that’s the problem with compromise. Compromise is expedient. It helps us to move along and move forward. But rarely do compromise solutions actually meet our objectives and goals.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Understood. And so, for many people, that’s an eye-opener right there in terms of, “Oh, negotiation is compromise.” And you say, “Au contraire.” And so, then what is an alternative path, I suppose, like deeply understanding our respective needs and values and interests and positions and finding a creative, awesome thing that makes people feel pretty good about it?

Joshua Weiss

So, to me, and in the book that I published recently called Getting Back to the Table, I talk about the idea of unlearning certain things that are getting in the way. And one of the things I say is unlearn compromise and replace it with creative problem-solving. So, Pete, if you and I go into a negotiation, one of the important things about negotiation to always understand is we are always working with incomplete information.

When you and I sit down, you know certain things that I don’t, and I know certain things that you don’t. And part of the challenge, and if we’re going to make a negotiation work in a way that’s, like, to its maximum benefit, that there are things that you value and you care about, and there are things that I value and I care about, we have to exchange information. And if we don’t, then we can come to an agreement, but it’s not going to be the best one. It’ll be just good enough.

And I remember talking to a woman, because four years ago I wrote a book called The Book of Real-World Negotiations, and that’s really about 25 cases of successful negotiations. And if you look at it, what you find is actually there’s very little compromise. It’s all about understanding what’s really driving and motivating people in a negotiation.

But when I was talking to this woman, she said, “You know, to me, the best negotiations are where everybody leaves the table a little unhappy.” And I said, “Well, why would you think that?” And she said, “Well, honestly, like my boss who kind of taught me how to negotiate, that was his mantra.” And I said, “That way of thinking is a race to the bottom.”

And you’re always thinking, “Let me give something up of importance in order to reach an agreement.” And half the time, at least, if you dig in and figure out what’s actually going on, those compromises are not necessary. But you have to take the time. If you don’t have time, compromise becomes more logical. But if you do have time, then the notion of exploration, understanding, asking good questions, and like gathering information is what you really should be doing early on in a negotiation process.

Hold off on putting offers on the table and things like that, and figure out what you can learn from the other side, because this is an interdependent process, “I need you to say yes for me to get where I want to go, and vice versa. So, I have to understand where you’re coming from.” And the best way that I know to do that is ask good questions and listen very carefully to what is coming back to you.

Pete Mockaitis
Could you give us a quick illustration of how we might think, “Ah, compromise is just what I got to do,” versus, “No, no, here’s a real-world example of folks. They learned some things and then they didn’t have to compromise, and both folks felt good”?

Joshua Weiss
So there’s a book called Getting to Yes, which sounds like you might’ve heard of, and other people may not have, but it was a book that really changed the landscape of negotiation. It was written in 1981, and it’s still on the bestseller list. So, it tells you that there’s something in there that’s still valuable, right?

The book really begins with a story of two sisters who are arguing over an orange. And they go back and forth, each claiming that the orange is theirs. And they decide that the only good solution is to compromise and to cut the orange in half, and they each get half, right? Logical solution. Okay. So, when they do that, one sister goes over to the garbage and peels the orange, takes the peel, throws it away and starts eating the fruit. Then she walks away.

The other sister walks over to the garbage and peels the orange, throws away the fruit and takes the orange peel and starts grinding it up to make an orange cake. Now, if they had talked about why it was they wanted the orange, they each could have had twice as much, but they didn’t. They rushed to compromise. And so, instead, each had less because they just did a split the difference kind of thing.

The key in negotiation is figuring out what is motivating people and what they really want. It’s a little bit like being an investigative journalist, right? So, when a story breaks, here’s the headline. And we’re all like, “Oh, my God,” right? And then over time, we learn more about that story. And the story is often not what we thought it was. And it was not what the headline was all about.

And that’s kind of, like, when people say certain things in negotiation, when people put their positions on the table, which is what we call it, right, like that’s the headline. But what’s going on under the surface is what we need to figure out and what we need to come to understand. Because there are a lot of things that motivate people in negotiations that are unspoken because they’re worried that you might take what I say and manipulate it or things along those lines.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s very well done with regard to the orange. It’s, like, of course, and we just have these assumptions, “Well, of course, they want to eat the orange. That’s what anybody wants with an orange.” And it’s, like, “Well, there could be all sorts of things. Some people might want to put the rind down the disposal to freshen up the scent in the sink.” There are multifaceted reasons for anything.

It’s funny, I think about this in sales too, in terms of my other businesses is Cashflow Podcasting. So, we help businesses launch podcasts. And we just assume, “Well, of course, what they want is more sales in their business. And then that’s why they’re thinking about launching a podcast.” But sometimes it’s totally different.

It’s like, “Well, no, this is really about legacy and passing things on, or to be of service to those who cannot pay us for our products.” It’s like, “Oh, okay.” And so, it really pays to not just assume, but to see what’s really driving things.

Joshua Weiss
And, by the way, assumptions, to me, are the silent killers of effective negotiation because they, essentially, destroy any understanding between people because you don’t know I’m making an assumption, right? And what happens when we make assumptions is we build entire stories off of one assumption. It happens all the time, right, especially around people’s motivations or their intention.

There’s a problem that we often talk about in negotiation of intent and impact, right, where you take an action with a certain intention and it comes across in a way that you didn’t intend and that is actually quite destructive. I mean, just think about if you’ve ever tried to be respectful to somebody and they took it as disrespect.

Or when you get an email from somebody and you read a sentence, and you’re like, “What the hell’s wrong with them?” And that could be read different ways, but you’re adding in meaning to what they’ve said and done.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, it’s amazing how we can read a tone into something. And I think one of my favorite examples was I sent someone an email. I asked the question, “Where is she coming from?” Like, I had the most open-hearted, curious, you know, my intentions were as wholesome as they could be. And then the other person said, “Just look at this interrogation of an email, ‘Where is she coming from?’” I was like, “Wow!”

Joshua Weiss
Yeah, that’s what happens.

Pete Mockaitis
It’s astounding.

Joshua Weiss
It is. It’s amazing. And I think that’s what makes negotiation difficult is that people come into negotiations. Our instinct typically is to be defensive when we come into things. Human beings are all about protecting themselves from loss. That’s what persuades us because of how we got to here from being hunter-gatherers. If we lost out back then, we got eaten.

And so, nowadays, we go into things with a bit of a protectionist mentality. And the problem with that is it’s very hard to be creative. It’s very hard to think differently and in a curious manner when you’re defensive and trying to protect. So, your mindset matters a lot. That’s another piece of this that I think is incredibly important, is that how you come into a negotiation matters greatly.

Pete Mockaitis
Very much. Okay. Well, these are great big principles for negotiation and just being a human, in general. Could we zoom in a bit to your book, Getting Back to the Table: 5 Steps to Reviving Stalled Negotiations. What’s the big idea here?

Joshua Weiss

So, the big idea is that if you look out at the landscape of negotiation, very few people talk about failure, and yet it’s a really important part of this process. I’ve been involved in some peace process work in different places around the world, and the norm is to fail.

And so, the key is, “What do we do with that when we fail?” It’s going to happen. And in the book, I talk a little bit about that there’s three sort of responses to failure when it transpires. And I use the analogy of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, so your kids will like this one. The first response to failure is blame and rationalization. It’s too-hot response, right, “The porridge is too hot.” And what that means is that, “When I fail, when things don’t go well, I blame the other side, I blame the situation, and I rationalize my own behavior.” I don’t learn anything doing that.

The second response, which is the too-cold approach to porridge, is that, “If I fail, I don’t want to negotiate again. It’s too anxiety-producing. It’s too uncomfortable. I’m going to struggle, I know when I sit down, because I’m going to be thinking about those previous experiences that didn’t go well.” Again, can’t learn much that way.

The third process is really what I talk about in the book, which is that if we’re going to fail, and if it’s part of the landscape, which it is, and if you talk to anybody who negotiates on a regular basis, they will tell you they fail. And so, the question becomes, “What are you going to do with that failure? How are you going to use it to become resilient and to learn and to grow as a negotiator?” because negotiation is not a destination. To be a really good negotiator, it’s not a destination. It’s a journey.

And there’s a lot to learn from our failures if we give it the space and time. Nick Saban, the winningest college football coach, likes to say, “Never waste a good failure.” And that’s what I’m trying to get at, is something happened, it didn’t go the way you wanted, how do you really learn from it? And what are those things maybe that got you in trouble that you can try to avoid in the future?

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And so, when it comes to these learnings, well, maybe let’s just pause for a sec. When you say, for negotiation to fail, in some ways, just the word fail in itself is so intense. Maybe we should define it. Is it simply when, “Hey, you did not get what you were after when you had that conversation”?

Joshua Weiss
So, yes, failure is not meeting your objective as you defined them prior to the negotiation. Now that’s distinct from a setback, right? And a setback is you haven’t gotten there yet. You can see a pretty clear path back to the table. And so, can you seize on that? Can you figure out a new way to come back to the table with the other side because it’s still of benefit to you? You can see that.

A failure is less so. It’s you can’t really see a way back to the table. And if you’re going to come back around, it might take some time but you probably have damaged the relationship and/or created a challenge and a problem that cannot be fixed right now.

And sometimes that happens and we have to just understand that a lot of times, we’re talking about setbacks and we can find a way back, but if we can’t, then we need to shift the conversation to “What did we really learn? And how do we become better negotiators in the future?”

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. And so, then, toward the very beginning of your book, you had some really good perspective on failure that, “Hey, it’s all good. It happens to everyone. This too-cold response, really, we need not take it personally.” And, in fact, I was struck with your Steve Jobs iPhone story. I think that’s rather telling when it comes to setbacks or failures. Can you share this with us?

Joshua Weiss
Yeah. So, when the folks around the iPhone were sort of working on its development, they brought the initial concept to Steve Jobs and he wasn’t a fan. He was like, “This isn’t going to work. It’s not going to make sense. We’re not doing it.” And the engineers had a kind of a better sense of this and they felt like he’s not quite getting this, “We need to help educate him as to why this makes sense.”

But in doing that, they also knew that they needed to find the right messenger. So, there was a colleague of his that he had worked with for quite a while who became that messenger. And in business like that, creating a prototype is often, there’s a guy at Duke University named Sim Sitkin, who I spoke with in writing the book, and he talked about intelligent failure.

And the idea with that is that you create a prototype, you expect to fail, but you learn, “How do we build on that? How do we improve or make it better?” And so, the process with Steve Jobs was to go back to him on a number of occasions with improvements so that he could begin to see what they were seeing. But he really dismissed them out of hand initially.

A lot of people, when that kind of thing happens, they just throw their hands up and say, “I guess it’s not going to happen.” And I think one of the keys to negotiation is that resilience and persistence. The best negotiators that I’ve worked with, they always say to me, “Look, we haven’t found a solution yet.” And it’s always yet.

Like, “There’s a solution out there. If we stay at the table long enough, roll up our sleeves and keep working at it, we will get there.” And I think that was the mentality around the iPhone because they were so convinced that this product was going to revolutionize how we communicated, and they were right. It just took multiple times and thinking about what’s going to resonate with Jobs and make sense with him.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, what I find so comforting about that is, you know, iPhone is a big deal, Steve Jobs, super brilliant person. We could think that, and with hindsight, we could say, “For a company seeking to make shareholders richer, launching the iPhone is the right move. And yet, brilliant Steve Jobs was not feeling it at first.”

And so, I just find that all the more encouraging for us in terms of, “We got something. We’re trying to share it. They say no. And that doesn’t mean it has to be the end. And it doesn’t mean that we’re bad, stupid dumb-dumbs or that we really botched it. We may have botched it. But not necessarily, doesn’t mean that we suck.”

Joshua Weiss
No, I think that’s exactly right. And that’s why part of the point of the book is to normalize this aspect of things. And I want people to understand that they will fail. Like, that’s how negotiation works. But I want them to feel exactly what you just said, which is, “We don’t suck at this. Like, maybe this didn’t work out. We need to take a different tact.”

And when I was working on the book, one of my students came to me, and asked me, “What are you working on now?” And I told her about this, and she said, “Oh, thank God.” And I said, “Why would you say that?” And she said, “Because everything we read in the program, I love it, but it’s all about these unbelievable successes that people had. And if we don’t succeed every time, we start thinking maybe we shouldn’t be negotiating.”

And I’m like, “Well, if that’s what you have taken away from all of this, then we’re not doing a good job of helping you to understand the real nature of negotiation in the world around us.” And so, yeah, I’m trying to, in one sense, as one of my friends put it, he said, “You’re trying to decouple shame from failure when it comes to negotiation.” And I think he’s exactly right, that what we want to do is help people to kind of realize this happens and it’s okay.

And part of the purpose of the book is to, when people have these experiences, is to give them a process for trying to figure out what happened. And I think when you go through that process, you might come around and be like, “You know, in hindsight, I’m realizing, I don’t think they ever really had an intention to get somewhere.”

Pete Mockaitis
Well said. Well, you mentioned process, you’ve actually got a five-step strategy for reviving stalled negotiations. Can you walk us through it?

Joshua Weiss
Yeah. So, the first one is, actually, believe it or not, about the emotional component of this. So, when we experience setbacks or failures, it hurts. It stings, right? We’ve all had that. We’re like, “I didn’t get where I wanted to go, and that sucks.” And the thing is that, what I notice is when people don’t allow themselves to feel the sting of failure, they can’t move through it.

And so, I actually use a model that was originally developed by a woman named Elisabeth Kubler-Ross about death and dying and about grieving as a way of trying to understand the kinds of things that you’re feeling, and that that’s normal and natural. And so, I kind of take people through, and I say, “Look, if you don’t cope with the loss that you’ve experienced, it’s a little bit like a backed-up sink. Like, nothing gets through, no learning gets through until you kind of take in the emotional piece of this.”

And, you know, it’s funny because a lot of people, when it comes to negotiation, they want to keep emotions out. They do their best to sort of say, “I’m not allowing emotions in here. I’m not going to get emotional.” And you can’t do that. Human beings are logical and emotional creatures. And it doesn’t mean that emotions need to blow up a process. It just means that you’re going to feel them.

If you care about something, you’re going to feel the loss and you have to take it in and be like, “Okay, this is not what I wanted. Now I need to figure out what happened.” So, the first step is like, “Okay, I’m angry. I’m frustrated. I’m sad, whatever. I have to cope with it and accept it. And then I can sort of address the rest of the process, which is then moving into more of an analysis and to figure out what happened.”

And so, there’s sort of the big picture and there’s the minute details. And I really encourage people to kind of look at the big picture of the forest, if you will. And in the book, I talk about seven ways in which you can fail in negotiation. And I didn’t mean that to be an exhaustive list. I mean it to be, essentially, a conversation starter because there’s not much written on the subject.

But what I’m trying to do is make people aware of these seven ways so that they don’t fall into those traps. So, part of what you want to do is, in that big-picture forest kind of view, you want to ask yourself, “What type of failure did I have?” So, for example, one type of failure is called the slipping through your fingers failure.

And that’s all about from the point of view of you and the other negotiator, like a deal was kind of on the table, it made sense, and yet somehow you didn’t get there. Something got in the way, somebody insulted someone, whatever it might be, there was a real opportunity to reach a good agreement and you didn’t get there. So, what I want people to do is say, “Was that the kind of negotiation? Was that the kind of failure I had?” and then move to the granular, right?

Because in most negotiations, we can pinpoint a critical moment or a conversation, a back and forth, where things started to go south. And so, I want people to identify that and think, “Well, what could I have done differently? How could I have adjusted or modified things to not go down that road?” And once you’ve done the analysis, then the question is, because one of the really important things is, “What are the lessons that you learn from this?”

And one of the things that I found, like when I do my trainings, a lot of times people will come up to me at lunch or at the end of the day, and say, “I’ve got this negotiation coming up. Can we just talk about it for a few minutes, and what might I keep in mind?” And, usually, when I do, what happens is that people are often transferring the wrong lessons from one negotiation to another.

So, if they’ve had success in a negotiation, they’ll think, “Okay, I’m just going to do that same thing in this other negotiation, this upcoming negotiation, and I’ll get success again, right?” But the problem is that, and there was a quote that I use in the book by a woman named Kathryn Bartol who teaches at University of Maryland’s Business School. And she said, “When you’ve seen one negotiation, you’ve seen one negotiation.”

And part of why I like that, I agree to an extent, but not fully, like I believe there are lessons that are transferable, but what she’s really highlighting is you need to be comparing apples to apples. Like, are there the same number of parties in the two negotiations you’re looking at? Are the dynamics the same? Or, in one negotiation, is there a power difference, in another, the power is equal? Is there a deadline in one negotiation or whatever, right?”

So, you can see there are lot of dynamics that you need to keep in mind when you’re analyzing and thinking, “Can I use this approach in this upcoming negotiation?”

And then the fourth step is, really, this idea of unlearning things that led you to your failure. And that’s where, for example, I talk about the idea of compromise, and that I recommend to people that they may want to unlearn compromise and replace it with this idea of creative problem-solving, because that’s going to hold you in better stead in most of your negotiations.

And that’s hard, because it means we have to look back at what our negotiation approach is, what are the pillars of how we do things, and why do we do them. And we have to examine that and say, “Is this still meeting my needs? Is this actually making me a better negotiator or not?” So, I just try to lead people down that road of thinking about all of this.

And then the last piece is, again, getting back to the table. And I talk about kind of moves that you can make. If you believe that you’ve got a setback, what are you going to do differently? What did you learn from the first process? How might you approach this negotiation a little bit in a unique way compared to the last time? And if you can’t get back to the table, what did you really learn about yourself as a negotiator so that you can improve and get better?

And so, that’s the process. And I think that what I’m seeing is it turns the mirror on people, on an individual. And that’s a hard thing to do. People don’t like to really look at themselves and examine their behavior and maybe the things that they didn’t do so well. But that’s actually the only way that you really learn from your failures and grow.

And I’ve had a lot of people email me and say, “This is really interesting because I’ve never reflected in this way on who I am as a negotiator and how I do better.”

Pete Mockaitis
Excellent stuff. Well, let’s hear about the addressing the emotion piece of things. If we notice it and we say, “Okay, there it is. I feel sad and rejected. I feel really anxious and nervous about getting back in there,” or, “I feel really angry. Like, that was some bull crap. That was wrong. We was lied to,” what do you recommend we do with it once we’ve identified, “Yep, that feeling is there, big time”?

Joshua Weiss

Part of it is becoming emotionally intelligent. If people have not invested in emotional intelligence, then I would really recommend that you do. And so, part of it is, if I know, if I’m angry, then the question is, “Okay, what is it that the other person did or said that really pushed me over the edge here?”

And I’m a fan of actually bringing that into the process and saying, “Look, I got to tell you, I’m kind of disappointed with where we’ve gotten to. I thought that the stars kind of lined up here in a way that made a lot of sense. But I’m just not clear why we haven’t gotten where we’re getting. And I’m frustrated.”

Like, to me, what you’re doing there is you’re bringing your emotions into the process without them destroying the process. And the interesting thing about this is, if I sit down with you, Pete, and you interpret something that I did, right, and I can tell you’re, like there’s something going on from an emotional point of view, because human beings are not so great at hiding their emotions. In fact, most of us wear them on our sleeves and we can tell there’s something wrong. It’s not that hard, right?

But if you don’t tell me whether you’re angry, sad, frustrated, whatever, then I’m left to guess at what’s going on, and that never ends well. So, like I said, for me, it’s when you’re doing this, find a way to bring it in. Be like, “You know, I got to tell you, like the way in which we’ve gone about this has really not sat well with me, but I’m still here. I’m not going anywhere.”

And for you, in terms of processing your emotions, one of the best things that you can do is something that we call going to the balcony. And, really, what it means is temporarily step away from the table in order to process things and then come back to the table without your emotions overwhelming you. And a lot of times people, say to me, “Well, can you really just step away?” I’m like, “Yeah, you can. There’s no rules.”

And, frankly, it’s actually in the moment like that where we make our biggest mistakes. And we all feel that, right? Like, we can feel ourselves getting so angry that we’re just going to say whatever we feel. And once we’ve done that, that’s all well and good, but now we’ve just made this process a lot harder, because now we might have insulted the other, and now they’re in the same place we are, and all that kind of stuff.

So, I think it’s important to be able to step away. There’s a great quote by a guy named Ambrose Bierce who’s an American writer and humorist, who said, “When angry, you’ll make the best speech you’ll ever regret.” The balcony is designed to help us to not make that speech. And it doesn’t, again, mean denying the emotional piece. It means recognizing it. It’s happening, whether you want to admit it or not.

And a lot of times, people would be like, “Oh, well, you know, in negotiation, you’re not supposed to show emotion.” I’m like, “Well, that’s not really true. Like, you have to be authentic. You have to be who you are.” Some people don’t wear their emotions on their sleeves, but they’re still feeling them. We’re all human at the end of the day. If someone deceives us, we feel angry, frustrated, whatever.

And so, you know, there’s a lot of self-talk. There’s a lot of self-management. And, in fact, in negotiation, it’s actually the one thing we have control over is our actions and our behavior. We don’t have control over the other side. So, how you react and respond is up to you. And, for me, I’ve been doing this a long time, and so I’m pretty attuned to the different things that get me going.

Like, when I was in a negotiation about a year and a half ago, and a guy said, “Clearly, you’re not smart enough to understand what I’m telling you, so let me break it down for you more simply.” And I was like, “Hmm, time for a balcony break,” because I knew I was wanting to say what he could do with himself. But I also knew that that would mean I was losing sight of my objectives, and so I needed to manage that.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, I think you’re plenty smart, for the record. Well, tell me, any final things you want to mention before we hear about some of your favorite things?

Joshua Weiss

I guess the most important thing that I would say is negotiation is a difficult realm. And I think people don’t understand how challenging it is to do it and to do it well. And so, try to go easy on yourself. I think our own worst critics are ourselves, and I think it’s really important to recognize that you’re going to have successes and failures, and both of those are opportunities to grow and get better at this.

And to the title of your podcast, I mean, if you want to be awesome at work, this is a realm where, if you invest in it, it will really help you. I have students in my program that are mid-career folks, and they all come to me, and they say, “I’m very good at what I do in the sciences, insurance, law,” it doesn’t matter, right? “But when I have to deal with people who I don’t agree with, or have to get people to come along on a project, I don’t know how to do that.” And this is how you do that. This is a deep dive into working with people effectively.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, now can you share a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Joshua Weiss
Well, I’ll give you two, if I might. So, I’m a big Ted Lasso fan. I believe genuinely that there’s a lot of really great lessons from that show in terms of how do you negotiate, how do you deal with conflict. And the very famous scene where he’s playing darts, and it comes down to the notion of be curious, not judgmental.

The best negotiators are people who are really curious. They come in, they ask great questions, and they’re open. When you’re curious, it’s easier to gather information and to sort of be in a mindset where you’re looking for possibilities as opposed to roadblocks.

The other is by Voltaire, the actor and dramatist, who said, “If you think uncertainty is an uncomfortable proposition, try certainty.” And I think what he’s getting at is that the more certain people are in their views and in their beliefs, the more doors get closed. And when you can sit with uncertainty, we actually have a much better chance of finding a good solution.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?

Joshua Weiss
I mean, honestly, I would have to say that the research that I did in my dissertation was probably my favorite bit of research, where I looked at how mediators in very big conflicts, like peace processes and things like that, how they sequence issues.

Because in the literature and when people would talk about this, they would always talk about, “We have to start with easy issues and work our way up to the harder ones.” And a lot of people believe that about negotiation and dealing with conflict in general. But I sort of thought that seems strange. It seems like there are some conflicts out there that would require a different approach.

And so, I did 20 interviews with lots of interesting mediators and things like that. And I was able to uncover five different strategies for how people try to sequence issues. And it’s actually been an interesting contribution to the field. And I’ve seen people sort of gravitate to it because sometimes you just have to deal with the harder issues first. And if you’ve got that logic and you understand why, it can be really valuable.

So, I would say something along those lines, which is also something that a lot of people don’t tend to think a lot about is, “Where do I begin with what issues and why?” and things like that. And it’s interesting because it can actually be a source of problems. People want their issue addressed right away. And if it doesn’t get there, sometimes they can get really fixated on that and worried that it may never get addressed.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite book?

Joshua Weiss
There’s a book called Negotiating the Nonnegotiable by Dan Shapiro, and it talks about some of the most difficult negotiations out there and how do you deal with identity-based issues in negotiation, like the really difficult stuff related to values, like when we see the world very differently than others. How do you do that kind of thing? So, I really like that book.

In terms of more broadly speaking, I’m a big Malcolm Gladwell fan, primarily because I really like how he connects very disparate ideas, things that seem like there’s no connection whatsoever. He finds a way to weave those together. So, The Tipping Point, Blink, David and Goliath, Revisiting the Tipping Point. Like, they’re all really interesting books, and he’s a really interesting read.

And I think, when it comes to negotiation as well, like, his way of thinking is a way that I think is very helpful in negotiation.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite tool, something you use to be awesome at your job?

Joshua Weiss
I mean, that would probably be the preparation that I do for my negotiations, and that process that I go through because it’s invaluable. But I do it in such a way that I’m always thinking about a contingency plan because I think one classic mistake that people make in negotiation is they want to have a plan, they want to go through the planning process, which is the right way to think about it. But you can’t have a very definitive plan.

What you have to do is really have more of a contingency plan that you’ve got your end goal that you’re trying to reach. But you want to have three or four different avenues to get there because it’s very possible that one of those avenues is going to be blocked or more than one.

So, when you prepare, I’d really encourage people to think about your end goal, but then think, “What are three or four different ways that I can get there?” And that gives you the confidence to be able to try some of these different avenues.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And is there a key nugget, a Josh-original sound bite that resonates with folks, and they quote back to you often?

Joshua Weiss
I think it’s probably that compromise should be the last stop on the train, not the first. You can always compromise if you absolutely need to, but make it the last stop on the train, not the first.

Pete Mockaitis

And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Joshua Weiss
So, I have website that has all my books and material, including some of the children’s books that I’ve written that we talked about before we came on air. And that’s just www.JoshuaNWeiss.com. So, N as in Noah, which is my middle name.

And if people do end up getting the books or things along those lines, I’d love hearing from people and what they thought of this stuff and how it helped or what kind of further questions they have. So, an open invitation to your listeners to get in touch.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Joshua Weiss
Don’t downplay the importance of negotiation. It is a central component to your success and your future. And so, I would encourage you, if you don’t know much about it, embrace it, dive in. There’s a lot of great stuff that’s written out there, largely for public consumption. It’s not very academic in nature. And so, invest the time and energy to do it, and you won’t be sorry.

1031: Mastering Virtual Communication with Andrew Brodsky

By Podcasts No Comments

Andrew Brodsky shows how to sharpen your virtual communication skills.

You’ll Learn

  1. What your emails and texts say about you 
  2. The PING framework for efficient virtual communication 
  3. Why in-person meetings aren’t always better 

About Andrew 

Andrew Brodsky is an award-winning professor, management consultant and virtual communications expert at the McCombs School of Business at The University of Texas at Austin. Poets&Quants selected Andrew as one of the “World’s 40 Best Business School Professors Under 40.” He is an expert in workplace technology, communication and productivity and serves as the CEO of Ping Group. Andrew earned a PhD in organizational behavior from Harvard Business School and BS from The Wharton School. He currently lives with his wife and two rescue dogs in Austin.

Resources Mentioned

Thank You, Sponsors!

Pete Mockaitis
Andrew, welcome!

Andrew Brodsky
Thanks for having me on.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, I’m so excited to dig into some of the wisdom of your book, Ping, and I’d love it if you could kick us off with a particularly surprising discovery you’ve made as you’ve been teaching this stuff, researching this stuff, and putting the book together.

Andrew Brodsky
The most surprising discovery that I’ve seen in my research is that there’s a whole lot more nonverbal information we send in our text-based communication and low-richness communication, like email, instant messaging, than we realize we do. So, when most people talk about it, they’re like, “Well, you don’t send any nonverbal behavior via email,” but we do.

So, typos can relay emotion, time of day a message sent can relay power. There are things like how we interpret emojis is not as straightforward as one would expect. So, there’s a whole lot of other information we don’t even realize we’re sending that other people use to interpret what we’re saying.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, Andrew, this calls to mind, have you seen this Key & Peele sketch, where they have an escalating misunderstanding?

Andrew Brodsky
I actually use that clip in my class to teach when I teach virtual negotiations.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, excellent choice.

Andrew Brodsky
It’s one of my favorite ones.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I guess that’s part of what makes you one of the world’s best business school professors under 40, Andrew. Kudos.

Andrew Brodsky
Thank you.

Pete Mockaitis
So, absolutely, so that’s intriguing there in that there is more that we are sending. I guess we don’t even know that we’re sending it. And then I guess there is still the risk of misinterpretation of those signals, like, “Oh, he sent it at midnight, therefore, this means that,” whereas, that assumption or interpretation could still be off, but some kind of thing got embedded by the time itself of when it was sent.

Andrew Brodsky
One of my favorite studies that researchers have on this, they use an example or metaphor to describe this process. So, what they do is, basically, tap a song out on your desk with your fist, and then imagine what, if you were to tap it out to someone else, what are the odds they’re going to guess it? And most people guess really high percentage. But in reality, very few percentages of people get it right.

The reason being is that when we tap out the song on our desk, we hear the music in our head as we’re tapping it, so it seems really obvious to us. The problem is, when someone’s listening to it, they’re not hearing that same music. They’re coming from their own set of assumptions, interests, and they’re like, “I don’t know what song it is.”

And the same thing happens with our email. When we’re typing out emails, we hear the emotion in our head as we’re typing it, so it seems really obvious to us. But the thing is, when someone else gets it, they’re not hearing the same emotion. For instance, if a boss sends a sarcastic email, they need to be humorous to their subordinate.

If they have an anxious subordinate, they’re going to be like, “Uh-oh, my boss is mad at me, or being condescending,” because they’re coming from somebody that’s very different. So, we all read information, whether it’s emails, or instant messages, with our different tone, so we gotta remember that they’re not hearing the same music we are when we’re writing this stuff.

Pete Mockaitis
That is a beautiful comparison point in terms of what’s in our head and what we’re actually transmitting that can go there. And it’s funny, my kids, we just got a keyboard, and they’re experiencing this right now, and they sort of spontaneously played the tapping game, and they were flabbergasted of their own discovery and how their sibling was unable to pick up on the cue, because, indeed, all you have is rhythm when you’re tapping as opposed to pitch, completely missing that I was doing “Mary Had a Little Lamb” because there might be multiple things that would have somewhat similar rhythms.

So, that’s fantastic. Well, so we’re going to dig into a little bit of the pro tips, the do’s and don’ts, and the best practices. But I would love to hear, maybe, just what is at stake here in terms of whether we master this stuff or we limp along and do okay with it, like the average professional?

Andrew Brodsky
So, I’m guessing everyone who’s listening has seen some email from some executive gone viral that’s extremely embarrassing, or those videos during COVID of executives, like, doing a horrible job of laying off people. Like, we’ve all seen these things go crazy viral. But those are the mistakes we generally think about when it comes to virtual communication. Those like big ones that went viral, but there’s a whole lot of other interactions that are meaningful.

They don’t have to go viral for it to impact yourself, your relationship, your career. So just every day, how are you presenting yourself to your boss, to your clients, to your teammates, is meaningful, and these things add up. And, especially when we’re interacting virtually, and we’re not standing in front of the other person, communication serves an important role. So, there’s our work, and in most cases, there’s not objective measures for work, whether you’re in accounting, human resources, whatever else. Most of our jobs don’t have 100% clear objective metrics.

And then on the other side, it’s on evaluating that. And also, it could just be a simple conversation between two people, and they’re trying to evaluate how engaged you are. And the thing is, they’re making subjective evaluations of this, because there’s just no objective way to evaluate most of these things. And the filter between your actual work, your effort, your engagement in conversation, and their evaluations is your communication.

So, that is what drives how people perceive these things. So, making sure you can communicate effectively across any mode has been shown to change outcomes everywhere from building trust, to how productive, or how high a performer you seem, how good of a leader you are, how good your outcomes are in negotiations. These things are impactful because that’s what drives perceptions, often so more times in reality than the actual work or effort you’re putting into the situation.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that really rings true. And we, humans, are not perfectly rational. There’s an understatement for you, Andrew, it’s so fascinating, and maybe you can share the actual science behind this to make it all the more real. But I find that our moods, emotions are not giving us reliably accurate information, you know?

And I’m not talking about, like, major sort of mood disorder diagnoses or anything. Just like terms if we are feeling cranky on one day and see the same stimulus, as we’re feeling well-rested and chipper on another, what we interpret about the stimulus is totally different, even though the objective reality or forecast is unchanged by our internal mood states.

And so, then, if there’s little things we’re doing that are annoying people with regard to our use or lack thereof of emojis, our grammar approaches, single spacing, double spacing after a period, the quality of our lighting or camera or microphone, any of these things that don’t really matter do impact the recipient’s mood, and then their evaluation or judgment of you, like, how competent and sharp you are as a professional.

And so, I’ve seen this on both sides of the table. And I’d love it if you could share, is there any super compelling research that shows just how powerful these effects can be?

Andrew Brodsky
Yeah, and there’s a ton of things I talk about in my book that, in theory, we shouldn’t have to do, but we all make these judgments of people, even though they’re not really rational. So, one of the good examples is when it comes to video calls, and, you know, we talk about email and instant message, let’s move to video.

There’s been a bunch of studies about video interviewing, and they show that eye contact during video interviews is significantly related to how the interviewer evaluates the interviewee. But here’s the problem, when you’re face-to-face, it’s very easy to maintain eye contact because you’re staring at the other person’s eyes.

For most of us, when we’re doing that on a computer, we’re staring at their face on the screen, so we’re actually making eye contact. But if you’ve got a laptop, if you’ve got a monitor set up where your webcam is above your monitors, for most of us, it looks like we’re looking downward, or we’re looking to the left, or to the right, because we’re looking at the person’s face on our screen as opposed to the webcam, which is kind of dumb because we actually are making eye contact, but to the other person, it looks like you’re just kind of looking off.

So, they might make assessments that, “Hey, this person’s not really engaged, or maybe they’re reading from a script, or they don’t care, or maybe they’re just looking up recipes for dinner tonight.” Whereas. in person, we don’t even have to make those guesses because we can see they’re paying attention. So, there’s like this dual problem virtually where they have to guess more because they can’t see what you’re doing because you’re not in person.

And then you’re trying to maintain eye contact, but it doesn’t necessarily align with your webcam. For this, there’s a bunch of easier and some harder fixes. So, just dragging your video call screen up to right under your webcam can be really useful for aligning. There’s more complex things. You can get a standing mount webcam that stands in the center of your monitor, or maybe just hanging webcams that you can actually stick onto your monitor. But just being attentive to these little cues virtually can be really, really important, even though, honestly, it shouldn’t have to be.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. No, that’s so well said. And if I could just throw out one more tip. I use, this is a fancy setup, podcast or life, but this, it’s a teleprompter, which is also a display, the Elgato prompter. And I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, Andrew, but I’m looking right at you always because it is a display showing up in the teleprompter mirror immediately in front of the camera lens so that’s, I think, the ultimate.

And I’ve heard people as they talk about reviews of this product, they are amazed at their communities, “It’s like you’re looking right at me. How are you doing that?” And so, I’ve been sharing this with a sales consultant. Because I imagine, if it matters in video interviews, it probably matters in sales conversations too.

Andrew Brodsky
Oh, yeah. I’ve got a more low-tech option myself. I just have a webcam stand that is bendable, so I put it right in the center of my screen. I’m a little less intense with it, but it’s the same thing, because this way, I can look at you and I’m looking at my webcam simultaneously.

But, yeah, these things matter everywhere because, I’m sure we’ve all had the experience of like, we feel like we’re on a video call and we feel like someone’s not paying attention to us, and in many cases, they’re not. But this gets back to my point that I was saying, is the way people make these judgments is often more about how you’re communicating acting as opposed to what the reality is in some cases.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that is powerful and eye opening. And if you could please share with us the eye contact video interview study, we’ll absolutely link in the show notes. That’s good stuff. And tell us then, are you aware of any cool stories of a professional who really took some of these principles and tips with gusto, and saw a cool transformation when they implemented them?

Andrew Brodsky
One of my favorite ones was an organization I consulted with recently, so this is a large Fortune 100 tech org, and they were having a big problem with communication overload. They had hours and hours of meetings, they were doing emails, like all night long, and it was creating a lot of stress for them. So, one of the things I approach with them is trying to have more structured conversations within teams about “How can we communicate better?”

And there’s some interesting research, for instance, that fits into this about the email urgency bias. And what that research shows is that, when we receive an email, we expect that the sender thinks we’re going to respond, or they want us to respond quicker than they actually care about. So, for instance, if you sent me an email, you probably think, “Ah, if he gets back to me a day, that’s okay.” I get the email. I’m like, “Oh, here’s an important podcast host. I need to respond within 30 minutes,” right? And I think that’s what you’re expecting from me.

And the problem with that is it creates a stress. It creates this feeling of needing to check your email all the time so that we’re interrupting our work, we’re interrupting our time with our family, and it creates all these different issues. So, what I did with a number of teams there is I had conversations with them and said, “Okay, amongst your team, let’s figure out, what medium has what response time? So, as a team, what response time do we want for email? What response time do we want for instant message? If there’s an emergency, how do we do it? Do we do it via text message? Do we do it via an urgent tag on one of these things?”

And in those conversations, as a result of that, they were able to get more focus time because they weren’t constantly having to check their communication and interrupt what they were doing. And multitasking is one of the worst things you can do for your productivity. And just like one related study to this is there’s some research that shows it can take up to a minute after each email to get back in the zone of work.

And it doesn’t sound like a lot to say, “Oh, it takes a minute to get back in focus.” But if you’re like me and sending like 30 or 60 emails a day, that’s like half an hour to an hour each day of just getting back in focus for the tasks. So, by enabling them to better chunk their communication without having to actually constantly be checking email and instant message, they ended up having a lot more time for work, they were more productive.

One of the team leaders came back to me afterwards, and was like, “My family hated me because I was on my smartphone all night long. And now I finally get to enjoy my family time because I know, if there’s an emergency, I’m going to hear the text chime, and I do not have to look at my email or instant message anymore whatsoever during the night, because we’ve actually made the implicit more explicit.”

Pete Mockaitis
That is powerful. And I have ran seminars where I have seen similar results with teams, so I will just put a big check mark on that one, is this assumption about the expectation that is far from reality causes all these angst and interruption and unnecessary multitask and unpleasantness. And it is such a wave of relief for folks when you can have that conversation, like, “Oh, wow, I don’t have to do that? This is amazing.”

So, that’s a great feeling and liberates all kinds of good stuff. Well, that sounds like a master key right there, Andrew, with this stuff, is, “Hey, how about we get aligned on what our expectations and preferences are with regard to how we’re using all these tools?”

Andrew Brodsky
And it’s great, because on the back-end, too, someone’s not taking two weeks to respond to your email because you said, “As a team, hey, we’re going to respond to every email in a day or two.” So, it kind of not only gives us more time to focus. We don’t have that dangling email for over a week because we said, “You need to respond at least a day or 24 hours, even if it’s, ‘I’m going to get back to this by X date,’ so we’re not left wondering.”

And when it comes to virtual interactions, silence is a whole lot more awkward than it is in person because we don’t know what’s going on in person, if they’re clearly thinking. Virtually, we don’t know if they just deleted our email. We don’t know if they don’t care at all. So, having those norms, and then at least within those norms, having a set of practices where we send something within the given time to say, “I’ll get to this by X,” really helps erase all that ambiguity that can harm relationships very seriously in the workplace.

Pete Mockaitis
Absolutely. Cool. Well, how about you take us through your favorite tools and tips for how we do all this stuff masterfully?

Andrew Brodsky
Sure. So, my favorite tool is the framework that I made for this book. So, whenever I read a self-help book, a business book, personally, I really like when there’s a framework because there’s often so many suggestions that I never remember all of them. So, in writing my own book, I did what I like to do, and I need one. So, for my book Ping I’ve got the “Ping” framework.

P for perspective taking, I for initiative, N for nonverbal, G for goals, and all the recommendations and research in the book fits into these four things. So, for instance P for perspective taking, this is the idea that when we are engaging in virtual communication, we tend to end up more self-focused because we’re maybe just looking at text on a screen, or even if we’re having a video call, they’re a small square on our screen as opposed to this big person standing in front of us, so we’re less focused on how the other person’s going to react, how they might think.

You would say things online often that you wouldn’t say to the person when you’re right in front of them because you’re more focused on how they’re going to react when they’re standing physically right in front of you. So, it’s really important to take a moment and try and think about how might someone see this from their perspective.

And going back to that emotion research, one of the good recommendations that came out of that is, if you take your message and read it in the exact opposite tone out loud than you intended. So, if it’s a sarcastic message, read it as serious. If it’s a serious message, read it as sarcastic out loud. Suddenly, people tend to be much less likely to be overconfident about how clear their message is. When they do that, they realize, “Oh, wow, my message is not as clear as I intended it,” and they fix it.

And then I for initiative. The idea here is you need to think about, “What can I add back in here into this mode that might be missing?” So, an example I give in the book of this is small talk. Many of us hate small talk, and for good reason, it’s not productive. And research shows that small talk decreases productivity. But it does have a benefit.

Small talk improves trust. And the reason being is we trust what we know. If I know nothing about you, if I don’t know about your family, what you do for fun, what your hobby is, I don’t feel like I have an understanding of you, so I don’t feel like I can trust you. Small talk is one of these ways that helps us feel like we get to know somebody else and we trust what’s familiar.

So, finding ways to add in a little bit of small talk into your virtual communication, whether just a couple lines of email, asking them, you know, “Hey, I know you mentioned you’re going on a trip. How did it go? Here’s what I did,” can be really, really useful for building that trust, if that’s your goal. I’m not saying write 10 paragraphs of small talk because everyone’s going to hate you for it and it’ll backfire, but the idea here is a little bit of this stuff, taking the initiative to add those things back in, can be incredibly useful.

And the nonverbal behavior, just being attentive to all the different cues you’re sending, and we’ve talked about a bunch already. So, eye contact during video calls, typos, emojis, which I can talk more about if we want, all these different cues and understanding, “What information am I sending without potentially realizing?”

And then, lastly, G for goals. I wish there was, I could just say this is the best mode of communication. There’s one mode to rule them all. It would be a very short book if I did. But the best mode really depends on what your goal is. So, let’s say video calls, for instance. There’s this big debate – cameras on, cameras off.

And my answer to that, when executives or teams or anyone else asks me about that, is it depends on your goal. So, research shows that having your video on can be useful for building relationships, for showing engagement, because it shows, “Hey, I’m listening. I’m paying attention to you.” But on the other side of that, there’s Zoom fatigue or video conferencing fatigue, where research shows that being on video can be really exhausting.

You’re staring at yourself. You’re observing all your nonverbal behaviors. It can be really energy depleting and that gives you less energy in the meeting, less energy afterwards, could lead to burnout. So, there’s these pros and cons. But if you think about it this way, if your goal is to show engagement, build a relationship, camera on. If your goal is to save energy to be able to focus better, then camera off is better.

So, maybe cameras on is better when you’re interacting with someone you don’t know really well. But when your team already has strong impressions of each other, we already know everyone’s engaged, we already have good feelings of each other, and having our camera on or off really isn’t going to change those things for a one-off meeting. It might be better for us all to have our cameras off so we can focus more on the task at hand.

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly. And you mentioned multitasking being bad news, and my understanding of the research is that if the multitasking is really close to mindless, like, “I am also walking on a treadmill,” or, “I am also folding laundry,” or, “I am also tidying up some of these items on my desk, like the pen goes in the pen drawer, the cups can be gathered and placed to the side.” Like, my understanding of these matters is that you’re actually not having a cognitive deterioration when that is the case. Is that accurate?

Andrew Brodsky
I would say it’s better for some people than others. So, there’s a personality trait like multitasking ability, technically, where it works better for some than others. In some cases, communication can be mindless, but in many cases, the communication is involving something that you’re not immediately working on, so your mind has to switch to a different task in the meantime.

So, it’s not like you could be doing your emails while you’re simultaneously brainstorming something unrelated altogether. If you’re really, really good, maybe you can, but for most of us, it kind of interrupts that process pretty badly.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, sure. And when I said mindless, I was referring to the secondary activity, the walking your feet on a treadmill is the mindless piece.

Andrew Brodsky
Oh, of course. Oh, yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
Such that it’s quite possible to pay attention well if the secondary activity is not communication-related and doesn’t take much conscious attention whatsoever. Is that a fair way to think about multitasking?

Andrew Brodsky
Oh, yeah. And one of the, I think, funnier, more absurd examples I get is, you’d be surprised how many executives have told me that they email from the toilet, where they’ve basically got their smart phone there and they’re taking out their communication. A little bit less exercise fun than being on the treadmill, but, yeah, I mean, I guess you get the job done there, right? So, yeah, so using those times otherwise, like if you can get some physical activity in, that’s not necessarily a bad thing at all.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, and that’s kind of how I think about the cameras off-on exactly as you’ve well-articulated in terms of, it is more tiring, it requires more of me, but perhaps if we are building the relationships, then that’s a great use of energy from the team is to do just that, versus, it really would be nice if we gave people a little bit of a break and we’re able to handle a little bit of the things simultaneously so long as they’re not messing up their ability to concentrate.

Andrew Brodsky
That, and if the only way you can keep your team’s attention is to forcing them to keep their webcam on, you’ve got bigger problems than that. You should be having deeper conversations about “Why is our team engagement low? How can we increase it?” If the only way you could do it is forcing people to keep their cameras on, you’re basically fixing the symptom rather than the cause, and you’ve got an underlying team problem there, and you are kind of treating the team more like children in many of those cases, where there isn’t that added value.

And, again, that’s not to say there aren’t situations where having camera on is really useful. I use it for teaching, especially when meeting new people, it’s really important, but there are many situations where it just isn’t adding value and it can really take away from the interaction.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, yeah, that’s powerful. Thank you. You’ve got a perspective on strategic silence in meetings. What do you mean by this and how do we do it?

Andrew Brodsky
So, strategic silence can be useful in a whole lot of situations. So, negotiating is often a fun one in these scenarios where silence is this great thing where it causes other people to fill the air. We feel a bit awkward during it, especially during virtual meetings, too. So, if you’re in this situation where you’re hoping someone’s going to disclose something, letting them do some of the talking and just being silent can be really useful. You don’t want to go to an extreme about this.

The other thing, too, is it becomes, in some ways, easier to speak over each other in certain modes of communication. So, some people will say, “Oh, video is pretty much the same as face to face.” And what I’ll say is, “Well, there’s pros and cons to each. There isn’t one better than the other.” But one of the things that happens with video is there’s often this slight lag, you know, we’re talking like milliseconds here.

But the problem with that slight lag is that research has shown that it messes up conversation turn-taking, where you kind of have these more awkward silences, you kind of interrupt each other more, so sometimes having a little bit more of a pause can be useful in video calls just to make sure you’re not constantly interrupting the other person, especially if you’re somewhat of a fast talker like myself.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Beautiful. And are there any common things that we’re all doing wrong and we should just fix it?

Andrew Brodsky
I think there’s a lot of things I’d say we’re all doing wrong, myself included, but the biggest one that I would say is that we often don’t take the time to stop and think, “Am I approaching this communication the right way?” We’re so busy and overloaded with meetings, with emails, that we don’t pause and say, “Should this really be an email or should this really be a meeting?”

And this lack of mindfulness is one of the main factors that drive people to have hours of wasted meetings each week that should have been email. And on the other side of that, too, that people often forget is there’s a lot of emails that probably should have been meetings. So, like this interaction we’re having now, you’re asking me a bunch of questions, I’m fairly talkative, so each answer is like five plus paragraphs.

If you’d emailed me these, I would probably take days writing up the answers, editing them, crafting them, but we can have this conversation live in under an hour. So, emails can also be really unproductive too in certain situations. But people just do whatever has been done, “So, we always have a meeting for this, so we’re going to do a meeting,” or, “We always have email for this, so we’re doing email,” or, “It’s already an email conversation, so I’m not going to ask to switch to phone saying, ‘Hey, can we get on the phone for a second just to resolve this?’”

So, taking that moment to think, “Is this the right mode and am I using it in the best way possible?” Even though you’re taking some time and losing some productivity to engage in that thought process, it actually saves you a ton of time in the long run and can really help improve your relationships in the process.

Pete Mockaitis
I dig that. I also want to get your hot take on these AI meeting tools, the transcribing, the summarizing, what are some pros and cons here?

Andrew Brodsky
When it comes to these AI tools for, let’s say, summarizing for now is what we’re focusing on, I think, again, it kind of cuts both ways. It’s awesome being able to have a summary of the meeting afterwards because it frees your mind up from having to worry about every single thing that’s being said in the meeting. You can focus on the conversation and you can go back afterwards.

The problem is that there’s research on something called cognitive offloading, which is this idea that when we offload tasks to technology, so we just have the technology do it for us, we tend to remember them less and we tend to learn from them less. So, if I have one of these tools summarizing every single meeting, so I’m not making a point of remembering what was said, for the most part. I’m not writing down the notes myself that helps me increase my memory, and I’m probably not even checking those notes afterwards because I know they’re available somewhere.

Then some client comes to me and asks me about something we talked about three weeks ago, but I’ve had tons of meetings since then, and because I wasn’t as focused on remembering what happened during that meeting, I don’t have a good answer. So, we can end up becoming a bit lazy mentally as a result of this.

So, the trick is finding that right balance where you can use them as a resource, but you’re not cognitive offloading so much that you’re not using your brain’s memory or storage itself. You’re only using your computers in that situation. So, you want to get that nice middle ground of using both your brain’s memory and your computer’s memory for storing what was in the meeting.

Pete Mockaitis
Boy, that is a great principle to bear in mind, in general. When we do cognitive offloading to the machine, we learn and remember less, and I think that applies to so much stuff – your GPS, the calculator. I was watching a chess YouTuber, international master, Jonathan Bartholomew, and he said, “I always recommend you analyze your chess games yourself first before you make the computer do it in order to learn more.”

And so, I think, boy, you could apply this in many, many contexts, so that’s a nice little master key right there. And I’ve also observed, sometimes these meeting recorders continue recording when some people have left and, oopsies, the parties did not intend the other people to hear that part of the meeting. Oh, my.

Andrew Brodsky
Yeah, there’s definitely been a number of those communication whoopsies. There’s always the funny one, I’m seeing a CEO get up and, suddenly, they don’t have pants on during the call, accidentally. Like, that’s the good meme, right? That started with the naked shorts hashtag, I believe, that actual example there.

So, these virtual communication blunders, in many ways, can be more problematic because virtual communication is just so permanent. Whereas, if all this stuff happened in person, there isn’t going to, generally, be a record of it. So, virtual communication is great because that record’s there when we need it, but, unfortunately, often it’s there when we don’t want it to be there as well, which is part of why it’s so important to get this stuff right.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, tell us, anything else you want to make sure to mention before we hear about some of your favorite things?

Andrew Brodsky
The big thing that I’ve been thinking about lately is artificial intelligence and actually writing your communication for you. So, as opposed to just summarizing meetings, do you just have it write your emails for you? Do you have it write your messages for you? And in my view, artificial communication can be really useful for the brainstorming, helping to edit, but I, generally, recommend to others that you do want to make sure the communication is your words because most of the time no one’s going to figure out you’re using AI, but they might one time.

Maybe it uses the word you don’t, like, elevate. Maybe you would talk about something in person. Maybe they mentioned they had a car accident the past weekend, and then you just copy and paste an AI email that starts with, “I hope you had a great weekend!”

Pete Mockaitis
“Do you remember what I told you about my trauma?”

Andrew Brodsky
Exactly. Exactly. And the problem is, if there’s one slip-up and they realize that you’ve been using AI for communication, their assumption is going to be, “Well, they’ve been using it every time I communicate with them.” And then their next question is going to be, “Well, why am I even communicating with this person?”

So, there’s such a risk of removing yourself and your own words from the communication that even one slip-up could really, really massively backfire. But I do think this human component of communication will continue to be incredibly valuable, at least for the jobs that require humans in them. If you’re required to be in that job, then people are going to want to communicate with you.

Pete Mockaitis
Absolutely. This has been my AI thing over and over again. It’s, like, AI can be a handy tool in the drafting phase, like, “Ooh, there’s a great word or phrase or sentence here and there.” But, oh, man, you are asking for trouble if you just outsource the whole of anything to AI without some careful checking, editing, curation.

Andrew Brodsky
Exactly. And AI is never going to know everything that you know, at least until we get to that distant future’s phase, maybe where we get brain chips and all that, right?

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, brain scanning.

Andrew Brodsky
Yeah, I think we’re a good aways away from that and from people actually being comfortable with that, even if for some reason that tech companies can get it to work. But the idea here is it’s just not going to know everything you know, so it won’t know everything you know about the other person, it won’t know everything about your goals that you want to achieve, so it just won’t be able to do this as well as you can. And the relational risk of over-relying on these things can be really, really severe.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, now could you share a favorite quote?

Andrew Brodsky
I’m kind of a cliche one. I like the Golden Rule. So, “Treat others as you would like others to treat you.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?

Andrew Brodsky
It’s one from the ‘60s. It’s about the pratfall effect. This study involved people listening to quiz show contestants, and they had someone get all the questions right, and they had someone get a bunch of questions wrong. The person who got every question right, people rated them as really competent, but not very likable.

It’s like that kid in middle school who was raising their hand all the time and got everything right. You thought they were smart, but kind of everyone hated them. It’s also why I didn’t have too many friends in middle school. But there was a third condition in this study where they had the person get every question right, but they spilled coffee on themselves, and that person was rated as just as competent as the one who got everything right, but just as likable as the person who got some questions wrong.

And the idea here of this is that making mistakes in not your domain of expertise or work expertise can make you seem more human and more approachable. So often at work, we feel this need to put our best foot forward or best face forward, but the key findings from the study is that makes you feel unapproachable, especially if you’re a leader or a manager.

And, actually, showing that, “Hey, I’m a human, I make mistakes,” especially in areas where they don’t matter, so it doesn’t make you look incompetent, can be a really good way for making you seem warmer and more likable in the process. So, don’t try and hide your true self in the process.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, now I’m thinking, as a callback, when you’re doing a video interview as a candidate, make sure to spill a beverage.

Andrew Brodsky
I might not do it in that short of an interaction, especially when you’re low power, because I think in the video interviews, they’re searching mostly on confidence, at least in the early rounds of them. But if you’re in a later round, you are kind of with a group socializing, one of those situations, that might be a better situation to try and pull one of those things.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, I’m sure we’ll make enough mistakes without having to engineer beverage spills along the way. And a favorite book?

Andrew Brodsky
So, my wife was an indie fantasy author, and so I’m biased. I like her stuff better. So, my favorite book of hers was one called Hex Kitchen. H-E-X K-I-T-C-H-E-N. So, it basically took Hunger Games and “Magic” and “Hell’s Kitchen,” and it was a magical cooking tournament. And for me, getting to read fantasy is just such a nice escape, and I’d be lying if I didn’t say I leaned on her expertise in helping to write my book so that the stories are a bit more fun. Because me as an academic with bland lame writing, having her on my side was just incredibly useful in the process.

Pete Mockaitis
Lovely. And a favorite tool?

Andrew Brodsky
My favorite tool probably is one that I don’t necessarily want to admit fully, but it’s probably the undo send function in email, and also the delay delivery function in email. At least for the latter one, I’m not as embarrassed about that one. But I like using the delay delivery one often because I sometimes will just try and knock out all my emails, like at one or two points of a day. And by delaying it and communicating a little bit more frequently, or seeming I’m communicating other times, or it can make me seem more present.

So, as opposed to all my emails going to my boss always only at 10:00 a.m. and never going at any different hours for instance, it might make me look like I’m not doing anything the rest of the day. So, sometimes I’ll strategically have my emails go at different times of the day to be like, “Hey, I’m here all the time.” And if I was giving recommendations to managers, I would talk about how to avoid those biased evaluations.

And this stuff is called productivity theater, and I talk about in the book, but the idea here is, unfortunately, human beings like theater, so knowing how to perform in it can be incredibly valuable to making sure that you’re achieving your goals.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite habit?

Andrew Brodsky
Going on hikes. There’s a good research that shows just going outdoors, especially when you’re sitting at a computer, and having physical activity can be one of the best ways to disconnect.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And is there a key nugget you share that really seems to connect and resonate with folks; they quote back to you often?

Andrew Brodsky
When it comes to virtual communication, don’t underestimate the value of removing visual cues. This is what I would call the in-person default bias, where we assume in-person is best, and we compare everything to in-person, but there’s a whole lot of advantages to not meeting in-person, to not having video on, that you can leverage by using email and text-based communication better, the least of which is getting rid of tons and tons of unnecessary meetings in the process.

Pete Mockaitis
And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Andrew Brodsky
So, you can check out my LinkedIn, Andrew Brodsky, you’d find me over there pretty easily. And then if you Google me, you’ll find my website as well where you can reach out to me directly.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And do you have any final challenges or calls to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Andrew Brodsky
Yeah, I would say try and think about your communication overload, and not get caught up in it, and take a step away for a moment and try and engage in some meta thinking, a level above, and think about “How can I do this all better?” As opposed to just accepting this stuff as a fact of life and a fact of work, think about “How can I improve my communication habits in ways that will make me more effective and make me happier in the process? Is there ways to do this that I won’t feel as stressed out and I can actually enjoy it more?”

Pete Mockaitis
Beautiful. Andrew, thank you.

Andrew Brodsky
Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

1026: How to Stop Saying Um and Become Super Articulate with Michael Hoeppner

By Podcasts No Comments

Michael Hoeppner shares fast ways to improve your speaking with innovative physical exercises.

You’ll Learn

  1. The key reframe that transforms your speaking 
  2. How to break the habit of filler words 
  3. The simple trick to clear enunciation 

About Michael 

Michael Chad Hoeppner is the CEO of GK Training and is on a mission to help people speak well when it matters most. With nearly 20 years in the field, Hoeppner has taught at Columbia Business School and coaches thousands of professionals around the world.

His corporate clients include three of the top eight global financial firms, one third of the AmLaw100, two of the four US professional sports leagues, former presidential candidate Andrew Yang, and multinational tech, pharma, and food and beverage companies.

Resources Mentioned

Thank You, Sponsors!

Pete Mockaitis
Michael, welcome.

Michael Hoeppner
Hi, thanks for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m so excited to get into some of your wisdom that you’ve packaged in your book, Don’t Say Um: How to Communicate Effectively to Live a Better Life. We love all those sorts of things. And it’s funny, as we’re chatting, I’m going to be so self-conscious about saying “um” in this whole conversation.

Michael Hoeppner
You know, I am not the “um” police, to be clear. So, I promise you, I’m turning that off, that awareness right now. But, truthfully, the point of the book, of course, is not that you can never say “um.” The point is, they should not skyrocket when you’re thinking more about yourself and less about your audience.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s good. That’s good. Well, I was going to kick us off by asking if you could share a particularly surprising or counterintuitive discovery you’ve made from many years of training so many folks on communication. What do us, humans, need to know about communication that we tend to not know?

Michael Hoeppner
Yeah, it’s a simple idea, which is this, we think, all too often, that talking is all about thinking. Like, if I have smart ideas and I think of smart stuff, I’m going to say smart stuff, and it’s simply not true. Speaking is physical. If you put your hand on your throat, and you say, “Communication is a physical art,” you’ll feel your hand vibrate. If you pound on your chest a little bit, “Communication is a physical art,” your voice changes.

So, the idea communication is all about thinking, messes us up badly. And instead, what we should do is use physical tools and use kinesthetic learning to get better at speaking.

Pete Mockaitis
Michael, I love this idea a lot. And this is a bit of a theme that’s come up a few times in different domains, in that many solutions are not thinking or cognitive-based in order to get to. And here you’re saying that communication is not about thinking but it’s a physical art, like pumping iron, or dancing.

Michael Hoeppner
Yeah. And the thing that’s so liberating is, just like pumping iron or dance or any kind of physical or athletic discipline, you can build muscle memory and get better very, very quickly by doing the right exercises.

Pete Mockaitis
So, with regard to communication is not about thinking, it sounds, maybe if I could distinguish that a little bit, I suppose the formulation of that which we intend to communicate is a thinking activity. Fair enough?

Michael Hoeppner
Totally fair.

Pete Mockaitis
But the actual projection, performance, delivery of those ideas, that prior preparation, is a physical art.

Michael Hoeppner
Yes.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Understood.

Michael Hoeppner
I mean, we all can relate to that idea of, if I have all these great ideas and then I open my mouth and they all tumble out in a completely disorganized jumble, and then as they do, I become chronically self-conscious about that, and that self-consciousness actually makes the whole job more difficult.

So, I’m not suggesting we don’t need our cognitive faculties to think of smart stuff to say. What I am suggesting is that if you completely remove the physical part of it and just remain in the cognitive category, you are absolutely shortchanging yourself. And the fastest way to improve is by addressing the physical.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, you mentioned fast improvements. Could you tell us a fun story of a client who made some fast improvements and what that before, after, and journey looks like?

Michael Hoeppner
Yeah, for sure. I’ll mention the one, I actually write about this in my book, I changed a woman’s career in four hours one time. Now, that sounds like I’m bragging and advertising about myself. That’s not the case. What determines if people improve and improve quickly is much more them, what they bring to the situation, more so than what I do, and this woman was ready to learn, and she came in completely brave and ready to jump in with both feet.

Now, “feet” is the operative word there, and I’ll tell you why. She thought that she had a problem with blushing. She had stage fright. She would begin speaking, and instantly she would turn bright red, and this self-consciousness about her blushing was absolutely intolerable. So much so that she would begin to brush her hair back from her face over and over again, putting her hair behind her ears, but what she was really doing was trying to hide from the audience how red her cheeks were.

And so, she would fall into an absolutely compulsive habit of doing this with her hands over and over again. As she did this, she would become so self-conscious, she literally could not even think of the next word in a sentence because all her brain was occupied with was, “Don’t blush, don’t blush, don’t blush, don’t…” You get the idea. But I said feet earlier. The miracle was this. We didn’t focus on blushing. We didn’t even focus on hair smoothing with her fingers.

What I noticed right away was that she constantly shifted her feet back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, almost as though she was looking for somewhere to stand that was solid ground. So instead, I simply put my hands on her feet, and, in fact, I even went further. I tapped the top of her feet as though I were putting little thumbtacks through her feet into the floor. I made her feet anchor into the ground. And, all of a sudden, when she did that, it unlocked a virtuous cycle in which her delivery tools, meaning how you say stuff, not just what you say, her delivery tools totally transformed.

Her breath slowed. Her mouth opened. Her spine got longer. Her hands opened up and got freer, and, all of a sudden, her body began to operate in a way that set her up for success. She calmed down, the cheeks didn’t blush, and she could actually think of a next word to say, and we did this for about four hours. She built a brand-new muscle memory, and she literally got over her stage fright in four hours.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s cool, the feet. And I recall, when I was nervous with interviews, back in the day, I found that when I planted both my feet firmly on the floor, I just said to myself, “Ground,” or something, that just sort of made me feel solid. And I don’t know, I thought it was maybe a me thing, but maybe you’re finding some universal insights here, Michael. What’s up with the feet?

Michael Hoeppner
Well, your body is evolutionarily designed to do some things. I mean, think about the sacrifices, in terms of evolution, we had to make to be able to stand on two feet rather than four. They’re massive. If you do martial arts, do you stand all crisscrossed and slouched over and constantly move your feet? If you’re learning a dance step, do you constantly shuffle your feet? No. We are built to have a stance in which we’re stacked as tall as we can, anchoring our feet into the floor so we’re balanced, so we can do all kinds of things, like even have our hands free to implement tools, and our voice unlocks very powerfully when we are as tall as we actually are.

And your feet being grounded is the first foundational step of that. So, it’s not just you. In fact, folks out there who are listening, the next time you’re giving a speech or any kind of presentation in which you’re standing, see what unlocks when you just ground your feet into the ground, just like Pete is talking about doing.

Pete Mockaitis
And I think you can even ground your feet to the ground when you’re sitting and it does something.

Michael Hoeppner
Yeah, you’re exactly right. But I’ll add a layer to it. Anyone who’s ever taken a yoga class and heard the yoga instructor talk about your “sits” bones, that’s if you sit on your hands and you feel this kind of bony part of your pelvis, that’s the bottom of your kind of hip girdle, would be one way to think about it.

Here’s the sentence, “Those are the feet of your torso.” I’ll say that again, “Those are the feet of your torso.” So, even if you’re seated, you can think about those anchoring into the chair just as your feet would anchor into the ground.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, while we’re talking about tiny adjustments and posture, I think I’ve also noticed the… in college I took one modern dance class just to keep enough credits to keep my scholarship, was actually a really cool experience. And we talked a lot about “pulling up,” which for a while, it took me a while to say, “What are we talking about?” And we had to read a whole article entitled “What does it mean to pull up?” which was actually very useful.

And so, they suggested imagining, like, a rope attached to, I think it might be called the suprasternal notch. Am I using these words right? Like, in the middle of your chest, like above your nipples, like right in the middle, if they were to cleave you in two, by maybe four or five inches above the nipple line, like you could feel a little notch. And I have found, sure enough, that when that area is, like, hunched just a little, versus it’s truly elevated as though a rope were pulling me upward, it’s like night and day in terms of the alertness or the with-it-ness. Michael, can you explain this much better than I’m doing now?

Michael Hoeppner
Yeah, I’d be happy to try, all right, for sure. Look, yes to that adjustment, and I’m even going to add another one. Imagine you had another string on your back. So, think of yourself almost like a marionette, a puppet, and you have one on both sides, and those strings are gently pulling you up so you almost can feel that full circumference of a circle around that widest part of your chest.

Now go even further, because in the chapter on posture in the book, I actually give a different image, which is imagine your head is a helium balloon and it’s gently floating up to the sky, and your spine is a long string on the end of the helium balloon, and you’re getting taller and taller and taller, not through muscle effort but through ease and release and grace. This is important because the way we learn posture is dead wrong. We hear all these conventional wisdom phrases like, “Sit up straight,” or “Pin your shoulders back,” or “Pull your shoulders back.”

Now, the problem with all of those things is they actually fit in a weightlifting class. Your spine is not straight, so you should not endeavor to sit up straight. Your shoulders should not be pulled back or cranked back because that’s using a bunch of muscles that are about building muscle strength rather than what posture should come from, which is balance and alignment.

Now the reason this feels so miraculous to you when you do it, I mean, first of all, there is a bit of just an endorphin rush from using our body in big physically expansive ways, but as it applies to speaking, if you’re not being as tall as you are, your diaphragm does not have as much room to drop down and push your guts out of the way so you can actually take a full, big, deep, relaxed breath. So, very often when I coach people on posture, the first thing that happens when they begin to be as tall as they actually are is they yawn.

And the reason it’s not because they’re tired, but the exact opposite. Because for the first time in that day, all of a sudden, their diaphragm has a space to actually drop down. What happens? Their lungs begin to inflate with air automatically, and they go into a yawn, and the whole body relaxes and releases a little bit. So that’s a tiny bit of an explanation of some of the things you might be feeling when you allow yourself to have that taller, released posture that your body is craving.

Pete Mockaitis
You know, I like that a lot with regard to the helium balloon floating situation and it’s not a matter of muscles, because I was just about to say, Michael, sometimes it feels like when I’m standing up really straight and my posture is great, I’m getting tired. Is there a certain set of strength training exercises I should be doing in order to improve? And it sounds like you’re saying, absolutely not. Just change the approach to your posture.

Michael Hoeppner
There is no strength training. Who has the best posture in the whole world? Once they’ve learned to sit up, put a baby on the ground, and watch them balance flawlessly. Anyone who’s had a young kid, call it zero to two years old, you plop them on the floor and you cannot believe how they can stay balanced like that the whole time. Here’s another image for it.

Remember holding a broom on the tip of your finger? You put the bottom of the broom there and you keep the thing perfectly aloft by moving your hand around, and the stick is completely straight and the head of the broom, which is much heavier, by the way, stays totally vertical because you’re working to keep it in balance. That’s how our posture works, from balance and ease and release. It does not work from muscle effort.

So, if you’re walking around the world, trying to pin your shoulders back, or essentially treat your day like a physical therapy session, you’re going to get exhausted. The wrong muscles will be recruited. They will get exhausted and fatigued. You will collapse, and then what happens is even worse. Then the voice in your head will kick in and begin to critique you, like, “Ugh, how do you have terrible posture?” “Ugh, why can’t you fix this?” “Ugh, why don’t you stand up straight?” “Ugh, I’m so tired,” “Ugh, it’s not worth trying to change it. Ahh…” then you collapse. So, instead, embrace release, breath, freedom, balance, and see what changes.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, beautiful. So, are there any other key prompts you recommend in terms of getting our bodies in a comfortable groove that is excellent?

Michael Hoeppner
Yeah. Well, here’s another one. Unlock your hands and let them talk. I’m not suggesting that you, need more hand gestures. That’s not my point. My point is, I bet you make more hand gestures in real life than you realize. And then you go into high-stakes presentations or board meetings or client situations and, all of a sudden, you have a bunch of garbage in your head, like, “Don’t make distracting hand gestures,” and you completely restrain your gestures. But in real life, your hands have a story to tell, too, and they want to speak.

Now, the reason this is a problem is not because I actually don’t care all that much about what you’re doing with your hands in terms of gestures, but I do care a lot about how free you’re being with your overall communication instrument. And when I see people constrain their gestures, very often what they do, too, is constrain their breath, constrain their jaw, constrain their enunciation, constrain their vocal variety, and soon they speak like a tremendously diminished version of themselves. So, let your hands actually do what they want to do, which is help to emphasize and tell your story.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s lovely. Okay. Well, so we talked about body stuff a fair bit, which I think is warranted given your notion that communication is not about thinking and it’s a physical art. So, tell us, when it comes to the actual words that we’re using, you’ve got some perspectives in terms of conciseness, articulousness, enunciation. Can you work us through approaches to improve these domains?

Michael Hoeppner
So, let’s take conciseness first. If you’re trying to be briefer with your remarks, say better stuff in fewer words, in other words, as opposed to just telling yourself one more time, “Keep it brief,” or “Keep it simple,” or “Take a 30,000-foot view.” Instead, pick up a stack of LEGO blocks, or any other stackable objects, and go through your content, but say one thing at a time.

And at the end of each idea, in silence, place down a LEGO block. Pick up the second LEGO block and say the second sentence, or second idea, and at the end of that idea, in silence, kind of like where the period might go, at the end of the sentence, click the LEGO block into place on the previous. Pick up a third one. Say the third idea. At the end of that idea, in silence, again, kind of like where the period could go, click that one in place with the previous. And slowly but surely, thought by thought, sentence by sentence, create the tower of your communication.

Now the reason this can be so dazzlingly effective for people is that, in that moment when you’re doing the activity of clicking the LEGO in place, something miraculous happens. You’ve given yourself a moment to pause and to think, and maybe even to breathe. So, you’ve given your brain the two things it needs to actually think of smarter, briefer stuff, which is time and oxygen.

This is how great impromptu speakers have built the discipline to speak. They share just one smart idea at a time, and at the end of that smart idea, they consider, “Do I need to say something else, or am I done?”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And in the process of actually stacking these LEGO blocks, it sounds like we may come to some realizations, “Oh, I don’t need that at all, or that at all. I guess it’s shorter than I originally planned. How grand.”

Michael Hoeppner
In fact, I can’t say who, but I’m working with a political candidate who is running for office. This particular candidate typically goes on way too long when answering questions. So, we’ve been working with these LEGO blocks relentlessly to get answers down to 30- or 45-second sound bites. It’s a very fast way to do so. Now, you can’t stack LEGOs in real life, but if you practice this, what happens is, very quickly, you build that muscle memory of tolerating thinking time between ideas, and very soon, you don’t need the LEGO blocks or the stackable objects at all.

Pete Mockaitis
Now, Michael, help us out with this muscle memory notion. I think some of us fear silence because of any number of dimensions, but when you mentioned a political context, I’m thinking about, oh, man, when you have multiple guests on a news show or a debate stage, it just feels like, “Oh, if there’s a split second of silence, someone’s going to grab it.” So, how do we think about these environments or even just the mental state and associations and emotions we have with the discomfort of letting there be that gap between our sentences and our thoughts?

Michael Hoeppner
It’s a big question. So, opposite of conciseness, I’m going to give you a thorough answer, okay? Because there’s a bit of a multi-step process I’ll offer here. The first is to recognize what the highest priority is. Most people are not on a Sunday morning political food fight talk show. Most people are living their lives, and the much bigger error they make is not having comfort with silence. So, recognize which the bigger one has in terms of a payoff for you and focus on that.

Next, this is a tool that’s so useful, The Wall Street Journal did a little piece on it. To build some comfort with silence, particularly when asking questions, you can do a simple thing, which is draw an invisible question mark with your finger at the ends of sentences, imperceptibly, where no one can see this, either just gently in a tiny microscopic way on the side of your leg, or if you’re remote, on a video call.

Why? We talk past the ends of questions all the time out of a sense of discomfort, and we don’t want to live through that silence. But if you actually shut up when you ask a question, guess what might happen? The person you’re asking the question might say something useful. I mean, think of that in a sales or a negotiation situation.

So, this idea of tolerating silence is not just crucial for being brief or being concise, it’s crucial even just in the reciprocal activity of having a conversation. Those are thoughts about building that muscle of tolerating the silence. But we can also get into how to avoid being interrupted if you want to. You want to go there?

Pete Mockaitis
Let’s hear it, yeah.

Michael Hoeppner
So, the first thing is, throw out that garbage advice of never have it be silent because you might get interrupted, because it might make it more likely you get interrupted. Why? Well, if someone hears that I’m talking to a person who never shuts up, no matter what’s going on, there’s never a single bit of silence, it actually encourages me, “You know what? I better get my voice in the conversation because I’m never going to if I don’t, so I’m just going to interrupt them midstream.” They might feel more inclined to interrupt you because they never see an opening.

And if you’re talking without ever giving yourself a moment to think about what the heck you’re saying, there’s a good chance you’re saying kind of dumb stuff. So, if you say dumb stuff, people are more inclined to interrupt you because they think, “No, I have to contradict what you’re saying.” So, contemplate that it might be making the possibility or pattern of you being interrupted worse.

If you’re afraid of being interrupted, instead, work on what’s called laddering, and, supposedly, Margaret Thatcher studied this to try to figure out how to make sure that her political adversaries would not interrupt her. And what it means is that you build, using all five Ps of vocal variety, not just pace, all five Ps of vocal variety, you build your way through a bit of speaking so that people recognize you’re not done yet, and I’ll do this in one sentence so you can see it.

Laddering would be a tool in which you use ever-accumulating vocal variety to let your listener know that you have not reached the end of your sentence. Now I’m doing it in a very exaggerated, absurd way, but you hear my point. You can show people you’re not done speaking yet with the adamance and forcefulness with your speech, and it doesn’t have to be by talking as fast as humanly possible.

Pete Mockaitis
And so, you said there’s five P’s. What are the five P’s?

Michael Hoeppner
Pace, pitch, pause, power, and placement.

Pete Mockaitis
Now, what do you mean by power and placement?

Michael Hoeppner
Power is volume, that’s loud and quiet. And placement means where the sound is placed in the body. So, as an example, if you have a friend with a really nasal voice, the placement of their voice is primarily in their nasal passages, and that’s where the sound is amplifying. Our voice amplifies throughout our body. So where is it placed?

Now the key thing with all of these five P’s is to, for the most part, use more. More variety. Because, typically, when we’re in a fraught communication situation, we contract and use less.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And so, different placement would probably imply a different pitch, but it’s possible. So many P words. It’s possible to have different pitches in the same placement.

Michael Hoeppner
Yeah, you’re right about this. You could disentangle them from each other, but they’re incredibly hard to do so because they work together organically to create emphasis and drama and surprise within what we’re saying. If you don’t believe me, just imagine trying to get a dog interested in a stick that they’re allowed to chew, but not the cell phone that they have found, and imagine yourself comparing those two things for the dog.

You would use all five of your different dynamics of vocal variety to make one thing  seem really cool and exciting, and one seem really boring and silly and uninteresting. They work together, these five pieces.

Pete Mockaitis
I like the dog example. I think you’d also use a small child.

Michael Hoeppner
I have a 10-week-old golden retriever puppy right now, so dog is front of mind. That’s what’s going on. But, yes, it works for kids too, for sure. And, by the way, if you want a quick way to unlock this, try an exercise I call “silent storytelling.” And all that means is you have to speak, but exaggerate every single part of your speaking except for your voice. In fact, put yourself on mute and think of this like lip-syncing.

Mouth the words, move your hands and your gestures like crazy, allow your face to be terrifically expressive, but do it without any sound. It’s as though you’ve been muted on a TV. Do it for a minute or two, and then, all of a sudden, let your voice back into the equation, and you’re going to hear, all of a sudden, so much more expressivity come out of your voice because you’re moving your body in a much more dynamic way. It’s a very quick hack to unlock a lot more vocal variety for people who struggle with at times being more monotone.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, thank you. Well, we talked about conciseness, then we had a fun little detour through some five Ps. How about articulateness and enunciation?

Michael Hoeppner
Yeah, let’s look at both. Again, I’ll jump right to something very tangible and very practical you can do. There’s an exercise in my chapter on articulateness called finger walking. And in case you’re just listening, what I’m doing is walking my fingers forward, choosing each and every single word that comes out of my mouth.

Now, I invented this exercise originally with a balance beam, or a piece of masking tape stretched along a floor, and would have clients walk along this balance beam choosing every single footstep. But then, of course, I wanted to find a way to make it instant for people, even if they didn’t have room to move around, and you can do the same activity walking your fingers forward.

Do not get hung up on “Am I choosing word by word or syllable by syllable?” Instead, simply focus on walking your ideas across the table. And if you don’t know what to say next, pause your fingers, consider what you do, and then slowly take your time to commit to each word you’re sharing. Now, the reason this can be very powerful for people gets at the title of the book, “Don’t Say ‘Um’.”

The way to be more articulate is not to obsess about all the worthless words you’re saying, like, kind of, sort of, um, but rather to be laser focused on which words you’re trying to choose. So, the exercise of finger walking brings your attention to, “I’m going to actually take the time to choose my words.”

Pete Mockaitis
And the idea, as we do the finger walking, is that each finger-fall, footfall, step, if you will, corresponds to one word that I’m saying.

Michael Hoeppner
Well, listeners, I’m sure you could just hear that Pete was practicing just now. So, thank you for practicing, Pete. It’s not quite that rigid. If you do it for a few minutes, what you’re going to discover is that it doesn’t actually correlate to every single syllable, nor each and every word. What begins to happen is the activity helps you choose words or phrases, but it forces you to actually choose those ideas, as opposed to just opening your mouth and letting words fly out. So, practice it a little bit. You’ll develop your own rhythm, and it doesn’t have to be quite as rigid as you’re talking about.

A different way to think about this is, imagine you were a ballerina, or your hand was, and the ballerina is trying to tiptoe through a field of tulips and not disturb a single flower petal. That’s the kind of specificity I’m talking about with your fingers. And what happens, like magic, is you become that specific with your language, too, and it unlocks what I call linguistic precision.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, so we’re sort of physically and visually representing, with our own bodies, a rhythm or groove between speaking and pausing.

Michael Hoeppner
Yes, thank you for that synthesis. Here’s the crucial thing. You won’t have to finger walk for the rest of your life. If you try it right now, by the way, it’s challenging. But it’s challenging on purpose. Because you may right now be very accustomed to just opening your mouth and letting a bunch of words fly out, fully 40% of which are not that useful. So, it forces you to really, almost obsessively, think about, “What the heck am I actually saying?” Well, you don’t have to do this too long, and, all of a sudden, you will have a much greater awareness of choosing words and ideas than just kind of free-form letting them fly out of your mouth all the time.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. And in the process, we’d naturally say fewer words and have more silences, is my experience right now, and it sounds like your assertion is that’s totally fine.

Michael Hoeppner
To a point. To a point. It’s going to feel a little bit too rigid at first. A little bit too much. What I’m suggesting is this is a radically different way to learn a behavior. Most people try to get rid of filler and useless words and be more precise and articulate by doing the advice of the title of my book. “Don’t say ‘um.’ Don’t say ‘like.’ Don’t say ‘kinda.’ Don’t say ‘sorta.’ Don’t talk too fast.” A whole bunch of thought suppression. It doesn’t work.

So, this is a different way to learn. You practice this a little bit, you bring a hyper-awareness to which words you’re actually choosing, and this uses what’s called embodied cognition. You’re learning with something besides just your brain. You’re learning with your body. You do this a little bit a few minutes each day, very quickly, you’re going to build some muscle memory with linguistic precision, and you won’t have to walk your fingers at all.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. So, this slow, halting, extra pause thing going on, as I’m being more linguistically precise, is almost a bit of an awkward intermediate stage that will, in time, with practice, disappear, and now I’m just artistically fluently precise at a good pace without those awkward silences and pauses.

Michael Hoeppner
Yeah, absolutely. Now, in my experience, in 15 years of coaching this exercise, this exercise is like a magic bullet, transformative for about 60% of people. Forty percent, it is legitimately too complex. It’s too much of a cognitive load. It actually kind of throws them off. But I will say something about this book that no author anywhere has ever said. I don’t care if you read the book. I really don’t. I do care if you read one chapter.

So, find the area of communication that has historically been a bugaboo or a challenge for you and get better in that one area. This exercise may not unlock precision or articulateness for every single person, but there’s chapter after chapter, so, yes, practice it. Yes, it may be awkward at first, and even if it doesn’t work, there are other sort of arrows in the quiver, to use a metaphor.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And let’s hear about enunciation.

Michael Hoeppner
Enunciation is the only category in the book that I offer a tool for that I can take no credit, because the tool is something I learned from an amazing voice and speech teacher named Andrew Wade, but he learned it from someone, who learned it from someone, who learned it from someone. And the first historical example of this goes all the way back to ancient Greece and an orator named Demosthenes. So, the principle here is you practice speaking with an impediment. Yeah, go ahead, what?

Pete Mockaitis
Like, do I put pebbles in my mouth, Michael? Isn’t that a choking hazard?

Michael Hoeppner
Hey, look at you, knowing the historical reference.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, shucks.

Michael Hoeppner
Yes, pebbles in the cheeks. Oh, shucks, exactly. No, it is not a choking hazard if you do it correctly. We’re not putting pebbles in the cheeks. You’re using one impediment that you put in between your teeth. A good thing is a slice of wine cork, that’s what I learned from Andrew Wade, but you have to hang on to the wine cork on the side to make sure you don’t inhale it. Easier is the end of a toothbrush, or even your pinky finger, neither of which are choking hazards, obviously.

And all you do, as I’m doing right now, is you put the impediment in between your teeth, and then the task is you have to make every single word totally clear even with the impediment in between your teeth. Now it looks silly. But you know what else looks silly? Basketball players dribbling with ski gloves on. Competitive swimmers swimming with extra baggy, two or three pairs of swim shorts. Sprinters running with a parachute, dragging behind them. Those people look silly, too.

It’s not silly. You’re doing the exact same thing. You’re building stronger muscles by making the physical activity more difficult. And by doing this, all of a sudden, all the muscles of enunciation, because they are muscles, get stronger because they have to fight past an impediment. Then you remove the impediment and, voila, your enunciation is better.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s good. Well, Michael, this is so much good stuff. Tell me, anything else that’s really good and juicy and powerful you want to make sure to mention before we shift gears and hear about some of your favorite things?

Michael Hoeppner
I just want to make sure that people get this really clear sense, “Wow, there’s almost a tool for each of these things,” and there is. And the point is, you can treat yourself like the communication athlete that you are and use some of these innovative approaches to build some new muscles.

And with that, I want to just quickly mention the first two that we didn’t get to for posture, in the book, but also in real life, if you don’t have the book, make a paper crown, and imagine you’re walking around with a crown on your head and you’re a regal monarch. And for grounding your feet, in the book, I actually have a page where there’s two silhouettes of footprints. You can stand on the book and keep the pages adhered to the floor.

So, for each of these places, you might feel like you have challenges in your communication life, there are ways to approach it, and physical, innovative ways that can create change very quickly.

Pete Mockaitis
Now with the crown on your head, I’m thinking about a recent trip to Burger King with my kids and the Burger King crown, and those things stay on pretty good even when we’re bobbing it all over the place. So, is there some nuance to how I do the crown exercise?

Michael Hoeppner
Yeah. Well, the nuance there is there’s a bit of imagination that has to happen. Put it on and then challenge your kids, or whoever you’re with, walk around, allowing the crown to give you the regal bearing of some legendary monarch.

If you’re with kids, make it a game. See who can stand as tall and walk as elegantly and regally as a monarch. And you’re going to notice very quickly what that unlocks is the exact kind of posture we were talking about earlier. Not posture from muscle effort, but posture from ease, grace, height, and balance.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, thank you. Well, now could you share with us a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Michael Hoeppner
There’s two quotes, and I’m going to mangle them a little bit, but it’s more important people remember the idea than even the quote. One is Buckminster Fuller, “If you’re trying to change something, don’t try to fix the old model. Invent a new model that makes the old model obsolete.”

And the other quote is from Teddy Roosevelt, which is something like, “The best reward in life by far is doing work worth doing.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?

Michael Hoeppner
We use that system of five P’s I mentioned to look at politicians’ speeches, and it turns out, pretty straightforward, politicians who use vocal variety are evaluated by their audience as more authentic. Politicians who never use vocal variety are evaluated as inauthentic. And in politics, being labeled inauthentic is like the kiss of death these days.

Pete Mockaitis
Beautiful. Thank you. And a favorite book?

Michael Hoeppner
I’ll tell you what I’m reading currently that I like the best. I don’t know about favorite book ever, but currently it’s Moby Dick, and part of the reason is it has the most dazzling piece of brevity. The first sentence is three words long, and two of the three words are monosyllabic, “Call me Ishmael.”

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite tool, something you use to be awesome at your job?

Michael Hoeppner
My favorite tool, in terms of software, is Otter it’s an app that does a bunch of transcription. And part of the reason I love it so much is it’s really good at notating what you’re saying, and I love to explore the dynamic of how humans speak versus how they write, and how our language is different in those two different sorts of processes. And so, very often, I like to actually write some stuff by first talking it out, and Otter lets me do that.

Pete Mockaitis
Michael, I want to get your hot take on this, there is a real difference between how we speak and how we write. And where I find it most pronounced in my life, hundreds of times over, is in bios because bios are written, and then I speak parts of them. And so, when there is a – what is it called? – a dependent clause, like, “A graduate of Harvard Business School, John does blah blah blah.”

And so, I feel like that was made for writing and not for speaking, so I feel silly speaking it, even though we understand when I’m doing a bio, I’m going to be reading something that’s been kind of provided and edited, but I feel off and I change it. So, it is. Yeah, what’s going on here?

Michael Hoeppner
Yeah. First of all, you’re doing your guests a real favor by changing it real time, because if you notice when you just said that, you even took on kind of a game show host voice.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, yeah.

Michael Hoeppner
You said, “A graduate of Harvard Business School.” So, it’s very difficult to read overwrought flowery language that really is made for writing, it’s very difficult to read that without any degree of mockery, because it sounds ridiculous when we say it out loud. So, you’re doing your guests a favor by translating that for them real-time, it sounds like, perhaps, sometimes even.

What is going on here is, of course, they’ve looked at this, is that our brains are even stimulated differently based on how we’re using language, and the activity of writing is fundamentally different than the activity of speaking. And yet we think they’re identical. I’ll give you a quick tool for this. This is, in fact, in the book. It’s called out loud drafting. If you want to get better at writing speeches, things that you’re going to say, come up with content that’s then eventually going to be spoken out loud and make it better, use this tool, out loud draft.

As opposed to picking up a keyboard and tap, tap, tapping away to start. Nope. Stand up, walk around, record yourself so you have the transcript, in case you say something genius, and then talk it out, real time, on the fly. First time might be bad. That’s okay. Do it again. Second time it’s still bad. Do it again. By the third time, it’s going to be better, and then you can go to the keyboard and write some stuff down. But only once you’ve done that, because then the writing is going to sound much more like how people talk anyway.

This is a tool I use in politics all the time so that speeches sound like direct first-person address as opposed to “Recited talking points that cover every single bit of policy that I need to in order to get elected.”

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, I think that’s dead on. I guess you said politics, I’m also thinking about sales copy. I’ve heard a great phrase I liked, which was, “Join the conversation occurring inside your prospect’s head.” Yeah, that is what I find persuasive, at least when I’m thinking about buying something, is that. And if it does sound flowery, elevated, like a grand essay, I’m less persuaded in terms of thinking, “Oh, this is awesome, and I want it, and I need it.”

And then I find, like I was looking at a top strategy consulting firm’s website writing about their experience with different cases, and I was like, “The purpose of this website is to get a C-suite executive to hand over millions of dollars for a consulting project. I don’t think you’re doing it right.” And I feel a little bit arrogant saying that, like, “I mean, who am? I’m not in that business of selling super high-end corporate consulting services.”

But I don’t think even highfalutin executives speak to each other that way and read about your omnichannel solution enablement, and go, “Oh, yeah, that’s what we need. Call the guys at BCG ASAP because I’m fired up by what I’ve read here.”

Michael Hoeppner
Yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
And I think this leveraging omni-channel stuff would just be so much more compelling in terms of, like, “Our clients have seen 30% increases in leads from their websites, apps, and direct mail.” I go, “Oh, those are three different channels and that’s a result I find very intriguing. Maybe I should talk to these consultants.”

Michael Hoeppner
That’s right, “Because I know what a website is, I know what an app is, I know what email is. Okay, great. Sounds brilliant.” Now this is a really important point for your audience, in particular, because this is not just about website copy. I see this all the time. Imagine this scenario. You’re in a board meeting. Someone’s going to present on something, okay? They’re sitting in a chair. They’re being introduced by someone else, or someone else finished up a presentation, and they’re going to hand the baton off to the person who’s going to go speak.

The person sitting in their chair is speaking like a human, chit-chatting with her neighbor, talking about something, diving into the discussion. They stand up. They walk to the front of the room. They even say something else casual and normal to the person who’s handing it off to them like, “Okay, thanks so much. Appreciate that.”

And then instantly they’re going, “We’re going to consider a leverage strategy, multi-part,” and they, all of a sudden, begin speaking like someone completely different as they’re reading off their slides, reading off this overwrought script that they’ve written, and, all of a sudden, the person we’ve seen two seconds before is replaced by a robot.

Communication is communication is communication. Your job is to say words that are meaningful to your audience and to focus on your audience in all these different situations. And it’s why I think, partly, that idea of public speaking is so confusing because whenever you’re speaking, it’s probably in public, unless it’s a private conversation with like a lover or a spouse or something like this.

Pete Mockaitis
That is good. And so then, I’m thinking about what’s the ideal time and place for flowery language?

Michael Hoeppner
First rule is you have to know your audience. So, I consult and coach in politics a lot. Most of the time we’re trying to find the simplest language there is and speak in monosyllables and even better use vivid language. That means nouns that are images and action verbs. But that’s because the audience and also the channel they’re going to receive this in, very likely they’re going to see a 30-second soundbite and that’s it. So that’s the first rule, know your audience.

But the second is, and now I’ll use a big word to emphasize a point, the platonic ideal, going back to Plato, the platonic ideal would be that you actually do both things. Now I mentioned Moby Dick earlier as the book that I’m reading. I mentioned that first sentence, but if the entire book was three- to five-word sentences, and all the words were monosyllabic, no one would still read Moby Dick.

Two sentences later, after that “Call me Ishmael” deadly simple sentence, Melville writes an 87 word-long sentence that features big words like “methodically” and “hypo” and these sorts of things. So, the ideal is that you can actually do both. Use soaring, big, complex rhetoric that verges on poetry, and also deadly simple blunt messaging.

And, as usual, one of the best at this ever was Martin Luther King Jr. and you can see this all through his speeches. This back and forth and back and forth between complexity and simplicity. The complexity gives your audience the credit that you actually think they’re smart, which you should. Audiences are smart. And on the other side, those simple phrases show them that you are a visionary leader who can identify a simple goal and deliver on that.

Now, that’s a lot to achieve in like a boardroom presentation or something, but people get bad coaching a lot of times too, of like, “Dumb it down. Keep it simple, stupid,” that kind of stuff. The best you can get to is that you actually do both, and those are the speeches that stand the test of time.

Pete Mockaitis
And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Michael Hoeppner
Yeah, well, first, the URL for the book is really simple, DontSayUm.com. If you want to reach out to me, LinkedIn is usually the best. That’s just Michael Chad Hoeppner at LinkedIn. And then the company that I lead is called GK Training, and again, that URL is very straightforward. GKTraining.com.

Pete Mockaitis
And, Michael, do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Michael Hoeppner
If you have the book, read one chapter, the chapter you need. If you don’t, there’s a free chapter at DontSayUm.com. I’m going to keep it free because people need this. It’s called Navigating Nerves. So, a challenge there is read that chapter and discover how actually your approach for navigating nerves might be totally counterproductive, and give yourself a new tool.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Michael, this is fun. Thank you. I wish you many meaningful communications.

Michael Hoeppner
Thank you so much, and the same to you.

1009: Negotiating with Difficult People with Rebecca Zung

By Podcasts No Comments

Rebecca Zung shares fresh strategies to take on your biggest bullies and win.

You’ll Learn

  1. How to identify if someone is a high-conflict personality
  2. How to SLAY your bullies and win 
  3. The mindset trick to keep narcissists at bay 

About Rebecca 

Rebecca Zung is a high conflict negotiation expert, a U.S. News recognized Best Lawyer in America and USA Today Bestselling Author. Speaking on platforms worldwide, she is also a bestselling author of several books including the USA Today National Bestselling book SLAY the Bully: How to Negotiate with a Narcissist and Win and her YouTube channel has tens of millions of views. Her podcast, Negotiate Your Best Life has 2 MM downloads and is in the top .5% of podcasts globally.

She’s also the founder of the proprietary SLAY® Method, the proven blueprint for negotiating with narcissists and her programs, including her High Conflict Negotiation Certification Training program- a coach certification program – have transformed thousands of lives in more than 150 countries and on every continent.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

Pete Mockaitis
Rebecca, welcome.

Rebecca Zung
Thank you. Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, thank you. Well, I’m super excited to hear your perspectives. And I’d love it if you could start us with an eye-popping jaw-dropping tale of narcissism run amok in a workplace. Lay it on us.

Rebecca Zung
Ooh, run amok in a workplace. Gosh, I think it’s going to just be like one of my stories. But, in a workplace, I’ve seen it in so many different situations, but one of the ones that I thought was the most egregious was a client that I coached. She had been a CFA for, I think, a Fortune 20 company here, and she was wooed to Hong Kong. Initially, she thought she was going to actually be a CEO of China, Asia, of this particular company. It was a family-owned company but, like a billion-dollar company, and she was going to be the CEO of one of the divisions.

And so, this guy completely love-bombed her, brought her to Hong Kong several times, told her that this is how it was going to be, that she was even going to be able to have women’s initiatives, and all sorts of other things, and she wasn’t really looking to leave her other position, but, because this particular person, who was based in Hong Kong, really laid it on for her, and put everything that she wanted into the contract, that she ultimately left her position, moved to Hong Kong and started with this company.

Now, this guy was the son of the owner, who was a billionaire who lived in Switzerland or something, but so she gets there, and the first day, she doesn’t really have an office. There’s all kinds of files and extra things in the office that’s supposed to be hers, and the guy that she was talking to the whole time, he’s not even available to meet with her on the first day. So, they stick her in this office, and they don’t really have anything going on for her.

They don’t even really put her on the website, and that day turned into the next day. And then she started asking questions, and then they were documenting her file that she was difficult. And then the guy started to say, “Well, we’re not ready to have you go into that position just yet. You’re going to start off over here.” Meanwhile, they’re paying her according to the terms of the contract, but they’re not giving her the position.

And, really, she was just trying to get the position that she came there for. And so, ultimately, she hired me and we figured out a way that we could potentially expose him and some things that were going on in that company. And she didn’t, ultimately, wanted to go back there but she just didn’t want, like harm done to her career, and so she was able to make a settlement from it. But that was like one of the craziest stories that I’d ever seen, ever.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Wow, that’s almost like a nightmare movie situation. You could turn that into a horror movie, it feels like, in terms of you know how we’re all a little bit nervous about a new job. It’s like, “This is the worst.” You’re out of your element, your family, your friends, your country, and it’s not what you thought and hoped it would be. That is spooky. Okay.

And so, then, in her situation, the result was to hire one of the best lawyers in America, according to U.S. News and World Reports, and really get into the meat of the matter. And it sounds like you went right for the juiciest, scariest, most sensitive thing they might be worried about a lawyer going after. And I guess we’ll just have to wonder what that might be for confidentiality’s sake, I’m guessing, unless you’ll indulge us. Will you?

Rebecca Zung
Well, I mean, I can’t say too much more because I don’t want it to be so obvious of who it was or whatever, but let’s just say the best way to get to a narcissist is always going to be looking at, what I call their diamond-level supply, which is their image, how they look to the world, their reputation, and then you take their own behavior, and so you’re not lying about anything, you’re not contriving anything.

I call it ethically manipulating the manipulator, and you say, “Well, you know, here’s what’s going to happen if we don’t come to a resolution. I don’t want to have to do this, don’t make me have to do this, because I just want to walk away in peace and I want my life. But if we can’t come to a resolution, then this is how it’s going to have to be.”

Pete Mockaitis
All right. There you have it. Understood. So, right from the get-go, we’ve seen the worst-case scenario and then the nuclear option for responding to the worst-case scenario. Understood. Maybe we could back it up a little bit and share, as you’ve worked with this stuff, you’ve researched, you’ve written the book, you’ve worked with clients, any particularly surprising or counterintuitive discoveries you’ve made when it comes to this adult bully stuff?

Rebecca Zung
Yeah, they’re always way more afraid of you than you are of them.

Pete Mockaitis
Really?

Rebecca Zung
Yeah, and they love to, you know, what I think of it? It’s always very similar to me when I think about the bully in “A Christmas Story.” Did you ever watch that movie? It’s like on every year.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, yeah.

Rebecca Zung
So, in “A Christmas Story,” this little kid is being bullied every day by this other kid, who’s like bigger, taller, he says he has yellow eyes, and he’s on his way home, and he’s like, “Oh, God, here comes that guy again.”

And then, one day, he’s so mad about other things going on, and it was just not the day to mess with him. And so, he fights back against the bully and ends up, like, going crazy on him. And after that, the bully ran away from him and never bothered him ever again, because it was really all about fear-mongering and terrorist tactics, right? But it all comes from a place of scarcity, a place of fear. It’s not authentic power.

True authentic power, it doesn’t have to use all of that. I love the analogy of “The Wizard of Oz” because in that movie, Glinda the Good Witch, when the Wicked Witch came around, went, “Go away. You have no power here.” And the Wicked Witch went, “Oh, God, I’m not messing with her. I’m going to go mess with people who are actually afraid of me.”

Because Glinda was, like, completely non-plus, it was like a gnat flying around, like, “Please, lady, not even wasting my time.” And that’s what it’s like when you have true authentic power. You don’t have to use control tactics, you don’t have to use fear-mongering, you don’t have to use all of these things because you know who you are, and that’s what makes all the difference in the world.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. I love that. You know who you are. Potent. If I may, if we don’t yet know who we are, how do we get there?

Rebecca Zung
Isn’t that the $64,000 question, right? I mean, you start by realizing that they’re preying upon your own triggers, your own traumas, your own fears, and not who you were born to be. You’re born to be authentically powerful in your mission, in your purpose. And you know when you’re there because you feel aligned with everything that you’re doing, everything that you’re saying.

And what narcissists do is they prey upon your vulnerabilities. They prey upon people who they don’t feel secure. So, dealing with your own traumas, your own triggers, understanding all that stuff got layered on, you were born as a perfectly wonderful baby who had no fears, other than maybe falling or loud noises. But as a beautiful brand-new baby, you feel completely like, “Life is good. Everybody loves me. I love everyone.”

And then what happens? Your parents do something, or grandparents, or kids, you go to school, you get bullied at school, somebody says something, looks at you wrong, then your neighbor kids, and dah, dah, dah, dah, whatever, and your siblings, who knows? But all this stuff gets layered on and you forget that you actually are truly and authentically powerful as you are. You are innately valuable, innately worthy. And what narcissists do is they prey upon people who don’t feel that sense.

And so, the more you gain respect for yourself, the more you realize that you don’t need to respond to every little thing that they do, you don’t need to defend yourself, you don’t need to argue. I always say I’m half Chinese, so I always wear jade, but never jade, never justify, argue, defend, or explain. Because the more you do that, you’re giving them your power, you’re saying, “Here you go. Have my power.”

The true act of power is to take that back and say, “I see you. I see you like I see a toddler having a tantrum on the floor, but when I see a toddler having a tantrum on the floor, I don’t feel like I need to get down on the floor and have a tantrum with them or actually get into it with the toddler.” You just go, you look at them, and you go, “Okay, are you done yet? Well, when you’re done…”

And that’s the way you have to do it. I say you have to put an invisible shield down around you and start putting up boundaries, and say, “I demand respect for myself. I don’t care if you’re my mom, my boss, my sister, my brother, my neighbor, or my best friend, I deserve to be treated with respect and I’m not going to engage in conversations where I’m not being respected.”

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. And I’m curious, when we think about, if you want to call them bullies or narcissists or high-conflict personalities, what proportion of the population falls into this category versus might someone just happen to have a different perspective than us, and be having a bad day? And how do we tell the difference?

Rebecca Zung
Yeah, great question. So, when I did my research for my book last year, I found that approximately 15% of the population has a personality disorder that lacks empathy. So, it’s about 6% or 7% narcissism, and then you go into there’s bipolar or personality disorder, there’s other personality disorders that lack empathy. And so, when you put them all together, it’s about 15%.

Now, then there’s also a percentage of the population that has what they call high-conflict personality disorder, which may not necessarily be narcissism or bipolar or any of these others, or borderline or whatever, but it could potentially be extremely difficult to deal with. Now, what I have to say is that this is a spectrum, right? So, all the way to the end of the spectrum are your people that have these personality disorders that lack empathy.

If you think of Jesus, or the Dalai Lama, or whoever your person is, on the other end of the spectrum, then everybody else sort of falls in between. And so, like where are you on that spectrum? It’s hard to say but we all have an aspect of narcissism in us. I mean, we all want to feel, seen, heard, and know that we matter. That’s the human experience. That’s just who we are.

But it’s when you are to the end of the spectrum, where you’re like, “I am in so much pain, so much shame, so much hurt, so much whatever is going on inside of me, that I feel empty inside and, therefore, all I can do is try to get as much supply as I can to the detriment of anybody else. I don’t have the capacity to have feeling for anyone else,” that’s when it’s an issue.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, these numbers are higher than I expected. That’s a good chunk of folks, and just lacking empathy, and so just operationally, definitions, let’s hear. I think I know what empathy means. When you say it in this context, what do you mean?

Rebecca Zung
Having the ability to step in somebody’s shoes, and say, “I get you. I feel you. I understand you. I understand your pain. I can see why you would be hurt by that. Your dog just died. Oh, my God, that’s just awful. I feel that pain for you. I feel that.” A person who doesn’t have any sense of that is like, “Okay, but you’re still going to come to work, right? I mean, you’re not going to…I’m not going to lose money over this, right?” Like, they’re just thinking about themselves in that situation.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so you’ve got an acronym to slay the bully, S-L-A-Y. Can you walk us through it?

Rebecca Zung
So, S stands for strategy, L stands for leverage, A stands for anticipate, Y stands for you. The strategy piece is having a vision, a goal, a very specific vision that’s not defined by the narcissist or the bully. It’s defined by what you want. And so, what does that look like? Does it mean, if you’re breaking up with a business partner, that you want to keep the business, that you want to be bought out, that you want to buy them out, that you want to sell the business? What does that look like specifically?

And then L is leverage, which I alluded to earlier, but basically if you have these two different forms of narcissistic supply, which is anything that feeds the narcissist’s ego, and the higher-level form of supply for them, the ultimate form is that diamond-level supply, which is going to be their image, their reputation, how they look to the world, all the window dressing. It could be a prestigious job, prestigious friends, big house, money, the big bank account, the car, whatever it is.

It could be a new girlfriend, a new business partner, a boss, colleagues, employees, people that they don’t want to look bad in front of, they will protect and defend this form of supply above any other form. The secondary form of supply is what I call co-level supply, and that is bullying people, making them feel small, pushing them down so that you feel bigger, smearing people, passive-aggressive remarks or behavior, moving the goalposts in negotiations constantly for no reason whatsoever. All of that is what I call co-level supply.

In order to get a narcissist to not be constantly in your space anymore, you have to figure out a form of supply that’s more important for them to protect, i.e. the diamond-level supply, than the supply that they get from manipulating you, and that’s the co-level supply, and then threaten that source of supply, otherwise, they will never leave you alone.

And I want to back up for a second, and just give a quick little overview about how a narcissist is formed. How they’re formed is formed in childhood. I alluded to this toddler in an adult body, but it’s because when they were children, they were in fight or flight on a continuous basis, different times over and over. When this happens to any of us as humans, our brain emits hormones, adrenaline and cortisol mostly.

And that cortisol, when it’s being built up in a brain of a child, can actually cause arrested development in the limbic part of the brain, and that’s what causes the issues. So, while their prefrontal cortex can continue to develop, the thinking and all of that, what happens is, if they get triggered as adults by a perceived slight, loss of control, exposure, it could be a tone, it could be an eye roll, it could be a body language, whatever it is, then that limbic system is activated, it shuts down the prefrontal cortex, and now you’re dealing with full-on emotion, and they don’t think clearly.

They’re not thinking in terms of rationality. They can’t think long-term, “What’s the impact of what I’m doing?” And so, they will literally take themselves down to take down the other person because they see that other person as public enemy number one. Everything is black and white with them, “You’re either for me or against me. If you’re against me, then you’re public enemy number one.” That’s why it’s impossible to negotiate with, or communicate with, a personality disordered person as you can a rational or reasonable person. Does that make sense?

Pete Mockaitis
Understood, yes. So, we’re not really talking about the sensible, rational issues, and the options, and the best path forward, but we’re more so, it’s like, “I’m going to take away your toy. Deal with that.”

Rebecca Zung
It’s 100%, “Even if I’m going to get in trouble, I don’t care.” Because I’ve seen guys that’ll say, “I will burn my business to the ground before I have to pay her alimony.” And you think, “Why the hell would you do that? That makes no sense because then you don’t have the income either,” but that’s what they do, because they’re in that full-on, “I’m not thinking from my reasoning brain.”

Pete Mockaitis
Well, Rebecca, that’s an interesting example there. And so, they say that, and in that moment, they feel that, but in practice, do they actually do that?

Rebecca Zung
Yeah, you do start to see them doing things like that, you know. They’ll fire their top person because that person wasn’t on their side, sided with the wife, or they’ll just stop working. So, we always say in the divorce world, that they end up with SIDS. The incomed spouse, whatever, whoever that is, ends up with SIDS.

We call it sudden income deficiency syndrome, like, “Oh, suddenly they’re not making any money.” And they have no money as soon as the divorce starts. But part of it is because they just decided, “You know what, I’m not going to take contracts, I’m not going to fulfill on them,” things like that.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, and it’s really hard to kind of wrap your arms around because it’s not rational.

Rebecca Zung
It’s not rational.

Pete Mockaitis
And, in some ways, it’s slightly rational in the sense of, if we’re being stone-cold no empathy, it’s like “Hmm, well, now I am earning half as much money from engaging in this work that I get to pocket for myself as I was before, therefore, I’m less interested in doing many of these jobs.” So, I guess in some ways, there’s a cold rationality to it.

But at other times, that’s self-destructive situation you described in terms of, it’s like, “I’ll burn my company to the ground before I pay you a cent because I’m filled with rage.” That stuff, that’s sort of eye-opening for me. I guess I’ve lived a sheltered, kind existence, that folks, they don’t just feel that way in the moment, but they, in fact, execute the rational steps over weeks, months, years to execute.

Rebecca Zung
Yeah, they do it, I’ve seen it. And the other half of that is that people will pay attorney’s fees that they don’t need to be paying. I’ve heard guys say to me, “You know, I’d rather pay you than her.” And so, they are constantly blowing up potential settlements because they don’t want…They enjoy the game of it, it’s the sadistic piece of it.

And so, normal rational people will sit down at a negotiating table, and they’ll say, “All right, how can we make sure that both sides feel seen, heard, know that they matter, get something that they want from this exchange so that we can come to a deal? Like, who wants to pay lawyers? Or who wants to keep fighting? Or who wants to…?” Like, there’s a cost to all of that, right? Not just lawyer’s fees, but also part of your life, and the stress of it.

And whether you’re dealing with a business litigation situation or a partnership litigation or maybe you’re just trying to negotiate with a boss for a raise, or a colleague, or whatever it is, it doesn’t have to be a litigation setting, but they’re not trying to come to a resolution. They enjoy the game.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that really is eye-opening in terms of a total reframe. It’s like, “Oh, the normal game I’m playing with normal people almost all the time is not what to do here.”

Rebecca Zung
No.

Pete Mockaitis
“Instead, I’m going to take this other approach,” which you’ve been walking us through, so we get strategic and leverage, and please continue.

Rebecca Zung
Yeah, so A is, anticipate what the narcissist is going to do, and be two steps ahead of them, which means you know they’re going to try to bait you, you know they’re going to try to trigger you, you know they’re going to try to do whatever they can to continue to get their supply source, their hit. I mean, they’re like drug addicts almost. And so, you want to come up with ways that you’re going to stay ahead of them, shut that down.

And so, what I do is I give people, you know, I have a whole wealth of tools in the toolbox, but some of them, for example, are what I call fluff or favor, vomit later, which is fluff up their ego a little bit to get a little something that you want give it in exchange for something that they want. It’s like you’re fluffing up a pillow, basically. So, sometimes that might be the plan.

Sometimes the plan might be making a plan stand, I call it, which is, whenever you have to meet with them, make sure you have an agenda, a scope, and a time limit so that they can’t sandbag you, so that you keep it to facts, not feelings. Because one of the things that a narcissist will constantly try to do is bait you into all sorts of things, whether it’s going for the jugular.

If you think that you’re really great at money, or handling, or careful with money, they’ll say that you’re a spendthrift, that you were horrible, that the only reason why they have money, the company’s making money is because of them, you know, stuff like that. And you want to sit there and defend yourself, “What are you, crazy? You weren’t even here. I was the one that brought in that particular client, and I was the one…”

Now, they have you. That’s exactly what they want. So, you want to go, “No, today, we’re talking about this issue. We’re trying to figure out how we’re going to dissolve this partnership, and we’re going to look forward. We’re not going to look back,” because you don’t want to get into that.

And then having a time limit because you want to be able to say, “Oh, you know what? It’s an hour or two hours, whatever it is that we allotted for this and, while talking to you is my absolute favorite thing on the planet, we’re going to have to continue this conversation another day,” because you want to take control of the narrative instead of having them take control.

And then the Y is you, which is your mindset. We kind of started with this at the beginning, which is great because I kind of like to start with it. But it’s you and your authentic power and you being on the offensive instead of the defensive. You thinking about how can you walk forward instead of backwards or even just staying straight. You’re shifting a power dynamic. You’re really going 180 degrees a lot of times.

And so, I say, step one, don’t run. Step two, make a U-turn. Step three, break free. Y is you breaking free? Y is you saying, “You know, I see you all the time. I don’t even care because you’re not a thing in my life anymore.” Oak trees don’t worry about whether the wind is going to blow, because they know they’re rooted, and that’s what you want to be.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So much good stuff. Well, now, could you maybe walk us through a couple examples of all this played out in action?

Rebecca Zung
I’ll give you an example for the Y. Many people ask me, like, “What’s a main message when you’re dealing with a narcissist or anybody?” And I always say that you and you alone define your value, and people will think what you tell them to think, and that includes a narcissist.

And I’ll tell a quick little story, which is when I first went out on my own many years ago, I had been practicing law for a few years before, and then I went, I was a stockbroker at Morgan Stanley for a couple of years and I had my Sears seven in ’66. And then I decided to go back to law to start my practice. And at the time, I hired a business coach, and I said to her, “Ugh, these people are going to think I’m such a flake. Like, I literally went from being a lawyer to financial, to back to being a lawyer.”

And I was in Naples, Florida at the time, which was a very affluent community, very kind of judgy, you know. And so, I said I was very worried about looking flaky, and she said, “People will think what you tell them to think.” She said, “You can tell them that you’re a flake or you can tell them that you are the only family law attorney that has a financial background, so, therefore, you are more qualified than any other attorney in town. Which story would you like to tell?” And I said, “Oh, maybe I’ll tell that one. That sounds pretty good.”

Pete Mockaitis
That sounds that’ll be better for a client position and bill a lot.

Rebecca Zung
“That sounds better. I’ll take that one.” So, that’s what I did. I positioned myself that way, I marketed myself that way, and within two years, I had the top family law practice there and I was representing billionaires and all sorts of very powerful influential people. And I can tell you that none of them would have hired me if they thought I was a flake, but it was really how I showed up.

And if I had showed up as, “Oh, I’m sorry. I know I jump around a lot,” and kind of defending myself, then people would have seen me as that. But I showed up as, “No, this is who I am, and this is what I do, and this is my background, and this is actually going to help you.” And I can’t tell you how many people hired me because of that, “I’m hiring you because you’re the only one that has a financial background.”

But it’s such a lesson because you define your value, and people will think what you tell them to think. You can tell once people walk into a room and they know who they are and you can’t mess with them. But they define that.

Pete Mockaitis
Beautiful. Okay. Let’s hear another story.

Rebecca Zung
Well, one of my favorite stories is I call it the $2 million apology. So, I was doing a mediation and I was representing this guy who was, like, the top developer in Florida.

Pete Mockaitis
Real estate developer?

Rebecca Zung
Yeah. And even at the time that we did our initial meeting, our initial consultation, he was acting like I was so lucky that he was choosing me to be his lawyer. And at the time, I was, like, referring out like 80% of the people who were coming to me, and so I had way too much to do. And so, I’m like, “I roll in the whole time, like whatever,” but he goes to hire me.

And so, at the time, he goes, “Oh, is there any room in your retainer or your hourly rate?” And I looked at him, and I was like, “No, but I’m happy to refer you to cheaper people if you’d like.” And he was like, “No, that’s okay. I’m going to go with you.” I said, “Okay.” So, then fast forward to mediation, it’s like 12 hours, it’s like 9:00 o’clock at night, we’ve been there forever, we’re all like ready to get out of there, and we’re about ready to sign the agreement. And the wife was going to get about $2 million in alimony over the next few years.

Of course, she was getting a lot of other assets as well, but part of it was alimony. And so, the mediator comes in to me, and says, “Hey, Rebecca, can I talk to you for a second?” I’m like, “You better be coming to me with an agreement that people are signing. Like, what are we doing over here?”

Pete Mockaitis
“At this hour.”

Rebecca Zung
Yeah. And so, he pulls me out in the reception area, and he says, “I have a very unusual request from the wife. She is willing to waive alimony if he will apologize to her for everything that he did to her during the marriage and take responsibility for it.”

Pete Mockaitis
Verbally, not written?

Rebecca Zung
Verbally.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay.

Rebecca Zung
Yeah, so she wanted him to go into the room without anybody else there and apologize. And I’m like, “What’s the catch?” and he’s like, “No catch. This is what she wants to do against her lawyer’s advice, whatever.” I’m like, “All right.” So, I go back into the room and I tell my client what he has to do, “Go to school over there, you know, like a puppy dog with your tail between your legs, whatever, say your thing and then she’s going to wave alimony.”

And he says, “No, I’m not going to do it.” And I’m like, “Yes, you are,” because I’m thinking to myself, “I’m going to have to give this guy, like in the lawyer’s call, a CYA letter, like cover your you-know-what, because what the heck is he doing over here?” And so, I’m like, “I’m going to kick your ass. Like, get over there.”

So, he finally goes over, and he apologized, and she signed off. She waved alimony. And it was like that important to her to get him to apologize but he almost didn’t do it. And so, at the end of the day, we’re standing in the parking lot, he signed, he’s got a signed agreement, the thing is done, and he says, “Hey, by the way…” he’s like, “Thank you very much.”

And he said, “By the way, I just want you to know that I’m glad that you didn’t negotiate your retainer or your hourly rate at the beginning,” he said, “because if you had, I would have thought that you were going to be soft negotiating on my behalf throughout the divorce.” And I was like, “Oh, really?” But the whole thing was very interesting to me and almost like a great case study in negotiating in so many different ways, because I stood firm on my value, and then the fact that he didn’t want to negotiate at the end because of his own ego, his own pride.

Because what would happen is that he no longer would have a tie to her because he wasn’t going to be paying her these monthly payments, so he couldn’t continue to control her. And that’s part of the reason why she also was willing to waive alimony, because she wanted a clean break from him, and he didn’t want to do it. He didn’t want to let go of his supply source but he finally did.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, there’s a lot of layers and things to unpack there. And what’s powerful with that value is that it was, in negotiation they talk about the BATNA all the time, the best alternative to negotiate agreement. And in your situation, it really was the case that you were pretty well booked up, you were referring out lots of work, and therefore, you truly, it sounds like, weren’t even tempted in the least to reduce your retainer.

Like, you could walk away, “And I will not be upset,” as opposed to, if you were just getting started, you’re like, “Oh, man, I need every client I can get. Well, maybe,” you know, you probably have some more temptation there.

Rebecca Zung
Oh, well, I have a story about that, too, if you would like.

Pete Mockaitis
Please do.

Rebecca Zung
So, when I did first go out on my own, the guy who ultimately ended up being my law partner, when I moved to California, he had been practicing for years. He was, basically, like my dad’s age and he was a member of the Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, he’d won all these awards, whatever. He’s such a wonderful man.

I went out on my own, he wasn’t my partner or anything, he was just my friend. He was really opposing counsel in some ways, like 5:00 o’clock one day, I had been out on my own for maybe a month, my receptionist says, “Hey, Jack Long is here to see you.” I’m like, “Jack Long is here to see me? Okay.” So, I go out and sit down in the conference room, and he says, he was from New York originally, so great, and he goes, “I need to talk to you about your hourly rate.” And I said, “What?”

And he goes, “It’s too low.” And so, I mean I was charging like $2.85 an hour or something like stupid because like, I said, “Well, I’m so afraid I’m not going to get clients, you know.” And he goes, “I’m going to tell you a story.” He said, “When I first went out on my own in 1969, or whatever it was, like, it was forever ago,” he goes, “I did a divorce for a guy and I charged him $4,000. And he comes to me and he goes, ‘Jack, you did a great job for me. You charged me $4,000.’” And he’s like, “Yeah?” And he goes, “My wife’s attorney charged her $5,000.” And Jack’s like, “Okay, so you should be happy.” And the guy goes, “Well, obviously he’s better than you.”

Pete Mockaitis
Hmm, obviously.

Rebecca Zung
And so, Jack stood up at that point, and he goes, “Raise your damn rates.” And he walks out. The next day, he calls me, and he says, “I got a great referral for you.” He said, “I’m conflicted off.” It turned out to be Arnold Schwarzenegger’s goddaughter, so I ended up getting to travel with Arnold and become close to him and their family.”

But he says, “I’m giving you this referral,” he said, and he started to explain the case to me and he gave me all the details. And then at the end, he goes, “And they have money, so charge something decent for Christ’s sake,” and he hung up the phone. And so, I took that client, and that day, I raised my rate by, like, a hundred dollars an hour, or something, and I never looked back. We went up from there, obviously. But it was such a good lesson for me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, there’s so much there with regard to pricing and psychology. And, boy, my favorite part was the word obviously because, in fact, the relationship between price and quality is fuzzy, and sometimes the best lawyers don’t cost the most. It’s just that high prices have to fund fancy buildings and other overheads, as opposed to strict quality of any professional. But, nonetheless, the perception remains, like, “Oh, well, the best are obviously, obviously the most expensive and the cheap ones must not be the best!”

Rebecca Zung
Yes, exactly. And that’s why he told me to raise my rates.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, tell me, any final thoughts before we hear about some of your favorite things?

Rebecca Zung
I always like to tell people to start looking at people from an observer’s perspective, because the way people treat other people is a direct reflection of the way they feel about themselves so you can never take anything personally. I mean, people who feel great about themselves don’t go around treating other people like crap. That’s just the bottom line.

So, if you take things personally, then it really is about how you’re feeling inside. So, don’t let your trauma do the talking. Don’t let your trauma do the picking. Do the personal development work and all the rest will come.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Now, could you share a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Rebecca Zung
I love the one from Rumi, which is, “Set the world on fire. Seek those who fan your flames.” I love that one because I want you to think about, like, “Are people dousing your fire? Are they pouring water on it? Or are they fanning your flames and throwing logs on it and saying, ‘Hey, I love seeing you fly. I want to see you fly some more. There’s room for everybody’?” So, that’s one of my favorite quotes.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, thank you. And a favorite book?

Rebecca Zung
I love The Seat of the Soul, Gary Zukav; The Power of Intention, Wayne Dyer; A Return to Love, Marianne Williamson. I love there’s one I’m reading right now, actually, called This Thing Called You by Ernest Holmes, I think is the author. It’s an older book, but I didn’t even know that it existed. So good. Really, really powerful.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And is there a key nugget you share with clients or in your books, that folks tend to remember and repeat back to you frequently?

Rebecca Zung
I think it’s the things that we’ve been talking about. You know, one of the things that I do say that I hear is what’s negotiable is contracts, issues, and terms. What’s not negotiable is your self-respect, your self-esteem, or who you are.

Pete Mockaitis
And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Rebecca Zung
My YouTube is RebeccaZung.TV. I do have a “Crush My Negotiation” prep playbook that people can get for free which is at WinMynegotiation.com, and then my website RebeccaZung.com has literally everything, tons of resources, a lot of everything about all my courses, my coaching programs, my certification, all of that.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Rebecca Zung
I would say do everything with complete integrity, and do what you say you’re going to do, when you say you’re going to do it, how you say you’re going to do it, even with the smallest things, making promises to yourself and the rest will come. The first negotiation that we have to do most of the time is with ourselves, for our own self-worth, keeping the negative committee quiet in our head. And so, by keeping promises to yourself, it helps you raise your own self-esteem and become the best version of who you are.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Rebecca, thank you. This is beautiful, fascinating, fun. I wish you many successful negotiations.

Rebecca Zung
Thank you. Thank you, Pete. It’s been great.