Eirik Gislason on Hard-Won Negotiation Lessons from NYC Real Estate, Outmaneuvering Hard Bargainers, and Getting Paid What You Deserve

In Brief: Eirik Gislason (archwaypartnersinc.com), founder of Archway Partners Coaching, leader of the Excelsior Team at Brown Harris Stevens, and host of the Shear Line: Negotiation Mastery podcast, joins host Dan Freehling (contempusleadership.com) to discuss how to get more of what you want without bullying, hard bargaining, or leaving value on the table. Eirik explains why hiring the meanest broker backfires and what strength in negotiation actually looks like (00:42), how collaborative negotiators grow the pie in a real estate deal rather than splitting it (06:05), and the upside and hidden downside of “Minnesota nice” (12:03). He walks through how to prepare for a negotiation with a Trump-style hard bargainer, including anchoring, BATNAs, and process before substance (15:47). Eirik also shares takeaways from the Harvard Law School negotiation program (41:20), unpacks the five most common negotiation mistakes (47:42), and breaks down the four decision-maker types (53:23).

Recommended reading: “Getting to Yes” by Roger Fisher and William Ury, “Getting to Yes with Yourself” by William Ury, “Think Again” by Adam Grant, “Never Split the Difference” by Chris Voss, and “Negotiating the Impossible” by Deepak Malhotra.

Transcript

Dan Freehling (00:00:05):

Hey everyone, Dan here. Welcome to another episode of Forward-Looking Leadership. Today, I'm honored to be joined by Eirik Gislason. Eirik is a seasoned New York City real estate professional who's on a mission to bring back the good name of negotiation. Eirik, thanks so much for joining us on Forward-Looking Leadership.

Eirik Gislason (00:00:23):

Dan, I am so thrilled to be here. Thank you so much for having me on and I look forward to our conversation.

Dan Freehling (00:00:28):

It's going to be a fun one. I'm looking forward to it as well. So first, why shouldn't a client hire the worst, most absolutely bullying, meanest person they possibly can to be their broker in a real estate transaction?

Eirik Gislason (00:00:42):

Yeah. I guess on the face of it, it seems like, hey, I want someone who's going to go out there and just take the strongest possible position. And so that's part of it. So I'm going to give you kind of three of the reasons why you wouldn't do that. But I do understand why on the face of it, there is some logic in saying, "I want somebody who's strong and I want somebody who's going to advocate for my interests." And what happens is a lot of times that comes out as I need somebody who's going to be aggressive or who's going to be hard bargaining. And there's a misunderstanding on the side of the client as to what you can provide if you can as a negotiator in terms of strength, confidence with the other side. So I tell my clients, if they do instruct me to take that kind of a position, that look, it may seem like it's in your interest for me to do that, for me to be the bull in the China shop, for me to go out there and do things that might jeopardize relationships or that might back other people into a corner.

(00:01:50) But let me explain how we can show strength and confidence in another way and gain everything that you want to gain throughout this transaction or get the best possible outcome that we can and do it in a way that doesn't have the effect of what bullying, hard bargaining, gaslighting does. Where people retreat, they back into a corner, they swing back, right? They go into fight or flight mode, and that ultimately is not going to serve the interest of the client. So that's first, is reframing what strength in a negotiation actually means for that client and reaffirming or giving them comfort that when you negotiate without them in the room, because that's the other part of this, is they are relying on you to be assertive, to be powerful on their behalf so that they don't give away anything that they shouldn't give away, so that they get as much as they can get.

(00:02:50) And so because they're not in the room with you, you want to show them that there's that strength and confidence that you are going to display, that you understand what it is that they're asking of you, and you're going to do it in a way that maximizes the potential gain for that client. I can stay strong, I can stay in control, and I can get you the best possible deal doing it this way. And I found whether your deal, it doesn't really matter who the decision maker is. And we have talked about all the DISC profile and different decision maker types, and I categorize them into the expressive humanist, the collaborative feeler, the analytic thinker, and the assertive driver. And even that assertive driver, even that Type A personality, if you can show them that the value that you're bringing, even if it's different from what they would do, if it's going to serve their interest, they're all in.

(00:03:43) So that's number one. Number two is I talk about tactics versus strategy. As a collaborative negotiator, I'm not averse to competitive tactics. We as collaborative negotiators, we will use competitive tactics in an environment or in a situation where we feel that it's necessary and with our client's permission. So if we need to move the ball forward, my job as a collaborative negotiator is to get the best possible deal for my client. And if that requires that at some moment we have a tactic that may be borderline or may be very competitive, that might be the answer. So I want to talk to them about tactics versus strategy and how I understand that and how I don't lead with a strategy that is filled with a bunch of competitive hard bargaining tactics. We'll get to that if it's necessary, but we don't want to start there.

(00:04:36) And then the third is I want them to understand what they're asking of any negotiator. If they're trying to size up whether they're going to hire me or not, and they're trying to decide whether they want to hire the bully or hire me who is a skilled collaborative negotiator, I'll often talk about that loyalty piece and how if they have a negotiator on their side who's willing to go into battle and start throwing punches for them and take that approach with the other side, the reality is that negotiator will undermine you at the first opportunity without thinking twice. They'll poison the well if it means that they get something out of it, because that's what you're asking them to do. You're asking them to completely separate themselves from the wants, needs, emotions, all of that of the other side of the transaction. And if they're going to do that for you, they'll do that against you at the first opportunity they have.

(00:05:39) So be careful what you wish for.

Dan Freehling (00:05:41):

Yeah, that all makes so much sense. And I love this reframe into strength is part of this collaborative negotiation process. And it's not saying we're going to be pushovers by being collaborative negotiators. It's the exact opposite of we're not just going to go in and have one strategy, which is try to throw the first punch and hope for the best. It's taking this in a much more non-zero sum kind of a way.

Eirik Gislason (00:06:05):

That's exactly right. And I grew up in Minnesota, went to camp in Iowa. And so I always love saying, and when I'm trying to describe what collaborative negotiation is to people, because oftentimes people think of collaboration as splitting the pie fifty fifty and getting as close to a deal where everybody gets the same as possible, which is not what collaborative negotiation is. Collaborative negotiation is maximizing the gain for your side of the transaction while adequately satisfying the other party, your counterpart, and minimally or marginally satisfying any related third parties. So I want to keep an eye on those third parties who have the interest of my client and interest that have some influence in the deal. And then I want to make sure that the other party, our counterpart in the negotiation, feels that they were treated fairly. They feel that they were given enough.

(00:07:00) And that could mean not very much, and it could mean a significant amount, depending on what the power balance is. But I'm not there to give away more value than I need to. I want to understand by asking questions, by really getting into the interest of the other side, what it is that we can do to exchange things of lower value to us, to get things of greater value to us and create value in that transaction.

Dan Freehling (00:07:25):

Value creation is huge for my business the way I like to conduct it. I think that's probably why we're kindred spirits in this, but it's always thinking of how do you create the most value and then you can talk about who gets to capture what parts of that, but it's much better to be dealing with a much greater chunk of value there than trying to split the difference.

Eirik Gislason (00:07:43):

Yeah, exactly. And I mean, you mentioned that a great book, Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss. It's a seminal work. I would say everybody should read that. But you also mentioned that term zero sum game a little bit earlier, and that is a huge, I think, a huge disconnect for a lot of negotiators that we're dealing with a fixed pie, that they believe that we're dealing with a fixed pie, and that there's only a certain amount of value that can be obtained. And so therefore, I need to get at least 51% or more of that pie. And if I do, then my client wins. And necessarily then if I get 51 or more percent for my client, the other side gets 49% or less, they necessarily lose. And that's how we get into that win-win negotiation versus the win-lose negotiation.

Dan Freehling (00:08:30):

Yeah. It's so counterintuitive for people. What is an example in, let's say, a real estate transaction where you're able to actually grow that pie? What does this actually look like for people instead of just, "I want to pay this much, they want to sell it for this much and we have to just split this"?

Eirik Gislason (00:08:44):

Yeah, so we talk about all of the different value elements that come into play and sometimes it's about minimizing risk for the other side. So it may be something like, so in our market, for the most part, we're dealing with a minimum 20% down in all transactions. It's not required in a condo transaction or in a single or multifamily house, but in order to compete, oftentimes you have banks that are lending on what we call 80% loan to value. And so in order to make the deal safer, a lot of deals are done at that 20% or more. A lot of co-ops in New York City require a minimum down payment of 20%, but because banks will lend typically on an 80% loan to value ratio, if I can get my client to put down 22%, 23%, 24%, and give that owner some comfort that if there is a slight under appraisal, and in the market we're in now, that could definitely happen.

(00:09:47) You've got falling prices, longer days on market. And so if an appraiser's looking at trends or if they don't know the area very well because New York is full of so many small submarkets, then they may underappraise the apartment. And an under appraisal of even $5,000 on a $500,000 deal could allow the buyer to either renegotiate the deal or walk away from the deal and exercise by exercising their mortgage contingency. And so they say, "Well, I need to putting 20% down. I need $400,000 from the bank on this $500,000 deal." The bank's only willing to lend me 80% of $495,000. And now we've got this $4,000 gap that the buyer has the opportunity to say, "You know what? No, thanks." They have any remorse or if they're having second thoughts, they can walk away from that deal, take their 10% contract deposit. So as you can imagine, if you understand this as a negotiator and you understand what the fear of the seller is, the idea that this deal might be risky because maybe they're priced a little bit higher than what they think the market might or an appraisal might come in, now all of a sudden they're calculating whether this deal is going to happen.

(00:11:05) And these deals take two or three months typically to close. So there's all kinds of timing factors and risk factors that are involved with leaving your apartment on the market for that long length of time only to have to come back on the market if they get declined for a loan or if they exercise their mortgage contingency. So it could be something as simple as a few percent of a down payment that could capture 10, $15,000 of price value in that negotiation. And that's just one example.

Dan Freehling (00:11:35):

And you're seeing that expertise and creative banking come into play there.

Eirik Gislason (00:11:38):

Yeah. Yeah. And helping the other side understand what their risk is. Part of that, that's part of it is highlighting to the other side, look, this isn't all about price. There are risk elements here. What is it that you're concerned about? And once I can understand what the concerns are of the other side, maybe there's something that we can offer that doesn't cost us much, but gets us a lot.

Dan Freehling (00:12:03):

So you mentioned the Midwest upbringing and Minnesota nice as a concept. Let's say somebody comes to you and they're naturally or culturally, whatever the breakdown is, they're Minnesota nice. What is your growth plan generally for someone like this? What parts of being Minnesota nice are actually advantages in this kind of negotiation? What parts are disadvantages that we need to work on?

Eirik Gislason (00:12:27):

That's such a great question. And our first on my podcast, Shear Line, that was, I had one of my very good friends, he's an interior designer named Jay Billiet, and he's my part-time co-host on the show. And so he and I, I said, "What are we going to do for our first podcast about negotiation?" And then one night it came to me, "Oh, Minnesota nice. We both grew up in that world." And there is a benefit and a drawback. There are tons of benefit. And when you're in it, it seems very beneficial. This idea of being polite and friendly, showing emotional restraint in times when other people might just get into it, like New Yorkers who are not afraid to have that conflict. And when you're conflict avoidant, you tend to have a little bit more emotional restraint. So there's some good parts of it, and it feels good.

(00:13:17) It feels good to be in that environment, but the reality is that there are some negative attributes when it comes to just being a full human being and really understanding your value and your worth. And I think that one of the downsides of Minnesota nice is there's so much deference and this ability, this conflict avoidance and this compliance to just let the other person have their way. And if you know anything about Minnesota nice, the other component of Minnesota nice is as soon as you walk away from that person, whether you're at church or whether you're at the grocery store, they'll turn away and, oh my gosh, they'll let everyone around them know what an awful person you were for taking advantage of them. So it's not that they don't understand that they're giving something away, but if faced with a, "Do I try to negotiate this? Do I stand my ground? Do I stand firm on my position? Or I'll give it away and maybe it'll come back to me the next time," they prefer — many people in that environment, and it's not just in Minnesota, obviously — that they tend to let that happen and they tend to avoid that conflict.

(00:14:11) And so like I said, the issue is that it leads to passive aggressiveness, the resistance to change, and then the biggest thing is a gross understatement of one's wants and needs. And that is where I had to really break out of that shell, especially when I moved to New York, and really understand that it wasn't bad for me to ask for something that I felt I deserved, or it wasn't bad for me to understand what my value was and ask for someone to exchange value as opposed to me just giving and giving and giving.

(00:15:10) And that wears on you over time when you feel like you're always the one who's giving into someone else. And when you learn how to collaboratively negotiate and you embrace negotiation as something that actually does benefit both sides, when you really can understand that, now you're more excited to say, "Okay, I know what my value is, or I know what the value of the thing that I'm negotiating is." How can I communicate that value to the other side, understand what they value, and then find ways to, as we talked about earlier, create value in that transaction?

Dan Freehling (00:15:47):

So much of this competitive bullying negotiation style is playing out on the national stage and on the cultural stage right now. And it is perhaps interesting, perhaps telling that President Trump has come out of this traditional New York real estate market. And I'm wondering, it probably has some broader kind of cultural relevance to it too, but let's imagine you were going up against President Trump at a real estate negotiation and you know kind of his style, you know generally the way that he's probably going to approach this. What would you do to prepare? What would you do to prepare your client for going up against someone like this?

Eirik Gislason (00:16:28):

Well, I'll very quickly say first that I agree with you 100%. This is something that's pervasive in our culture from leadership on the national level with Trump and into reality TV culture and so many facets of our life where we're celebrating this kind of behavior and encouraging it, this bullying type of behavior, which is unfortunate. So I want to make that comment because I think it's uniquely bad right now. As I've watched the style progress or change, you start to see exactly how you would negotiate with this type of person. And I think that yes, this is something that this is a way that he's done business his entire adult life. It hasn't reaped the kind of benefits that I think a skilled collaborative negotiator would have. And I think it's very, very simple. It's really about understanding the mechanics of a negotiation with him because there's a lot of bluster, there's a lot of hard bargaining, there is a lot of bullying.

(00:17:49) And the first thing that I would encourage any negotiator, if you're dealing with it, with any type of a negotiator like that is you have to remember that this is not personal. Anything that is being said to you is just a move. It's a tactic. It's something that's designed to push you back, to gaslight you, to put you in a position where you feel that you challenge your own truth, that you feel as though you're subservient or that you have a lesser position than the other side. They have nothing to lose, you have everything to lose. And this goes into loss aversion. This is how our brains are wired. So remember, I'm not going to take any of this personally, and I'm not going to be intimidated. Those are the things that I would immediately go into with framing into a negotiation with someone like that.

(00:18:42) And so now I'll go into kind of a few points. One is understand the environment that you're walking into. So we all know that if I walk in with deference, status recognition, compliments, gifts, symbolic gestures, not as a way to give up deal power, but as a way to get to the table, that's going to be necessary. So if I'm really interested in a deal, then those types of concessions are huge to someone like them. They're nothing to me. I can make those concessions and it doesn't give any ground on my negotiation by getting there at the table, but I may gain favor, and we see this all the time, right? I may gain that seat at the table, which is where I want to be by being able to have to understand the environment that I'm in. So that's one, check your ego at the door.

(00:19:40) So now that you're at the table, now you've got to prepare. You've got to be very clear on your goals. And this is where I think a lot of people really get caught up in the way that he negotiates because this is what a bully does. They will try to get you to challenge your position or take such an extreme position that even if they don't get everything they want, they've... Let's say there's a middle point to a negotiation, you're at one, they're at a hundred, and you're looking at where this deal gets done. And oftentimes psychologically, we'll think about that middle point, right? So I'm trying to figure out what's the zone of possible agreement on what side of that middle point is this going to get done and what someone like he will do is he'll take a position at 300. So now you're at one, he's at 300.

(00:20:34) Now he's dragged that middle point to 150. You had no plan to go anywhere above a hundred, let alone 150, but now he'll make concessions to get you to a hundred. And now you've started at one in a hundred and he's taken this extreme position in order to get you to drag that middle point so that you'll end up at something that he's actually more comfortable with. It may not be everything that he's asking for, but you'll comply and you'll actually change your own goals. You'll justify that 100 and say, "I didn't give him a 300. I didn't give him everything you wanted." Meanwhile, he wasn't looking for 300. That was just an extreme position to get him to what his actual goal was. So you've got to be very clear about what your goals are, what minimal acceptable outcome is there. There are different schools of thought or different thought leaders on negotiation.

(00:21:31) Harvard Program on Negotiation being one of them, and I'll mention a couple of terms from them today, I'm sure, but the Penn program, the Wharton School, they put a high value or they say the most important source of power is goal setting, is having minimums, maximums, and goals, understanding what you are willing to do. And then Harvard places what's called the BATNA, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement, which is very similar. It's about the goal setting and sticking to those goals. So knowing what your minimum outcomes that you'll be willing to accept are, what your ideal outcome is, and what your walkaway point, your reservation point, when are you going to say, nope, and walk away, and being willing to walk away, not say, "Oh, we'll just see how it goes." Because a lot of people enter into negotiation with a person like him and they're like, "Well, let's just feel it out."

(00:22:24) You cannot feel it out. You've got to be very clear. The third is focus on what Deepak Malhotra from the Harvard Program on Negotiation calls process before substance. Another great book, Negotiation Genius, or actually no, Negotiate the Impossible is where he said the process before substance. He also wrote Negotiation Genius, but Negotiate the Impossible — he talks about process before substance. With someone like that, with any hard bargaining negotiator, you want to talk process before substance. They're going to want to go right to substance, tell me what you're going to give me. I want this, I want that. You want to sit down and say, "How's information going to be shared? What decisions are going to be made in this room and what decisions are going to be made behind closed doors outside of this room? Who has authority on your side to make decisions?" Because you'll see the good cop, bad cop come out, you'll see transfer of authority come out, you'll see all of these tactics come out on their side where they're willing to switch the negotiator on you midstream so you don't even know who you're negotiating with.

(00:23:25) So process before substance, you've got to define the process or they will, or they'll define the process. And in a high profile negotiation, usually the louder party is going to have favor or is going to have the control. So you want to have that process before substance. And then I talked about the BATNA. You've got to have a BATNA. What is your best alternative? What is Plan B? And this is a mistake that in any negotiation, not just in a negotiation that we're talking about right now with a bully, but in any negotiation, you are stronger, much stronger in that negotiation if you have an alternative, a Plan B because now you have a reservation. Now you can justify that reservation point. When are you going to walk away from Plan A and go to Plan B? It's very, very clear because you know what Plan B is.

(00:24:17) So having a Plan B, having a BATNA, best alternative to a negotiated agreement is crucial when dealing with a hard bargaining because that hard bargaining negotiator, because then you have that power to say, "Nope, you know what you're asking for?" And we're seeing this with Canada, right? This is exactly what Canada has done brilliantly is they are exercising their BATNA. They're saying, "You know what? We have another choice and we are going to exercise that other choice and we'll walk away from the table because we have better options." And that's given them strength that they didn't have before. As I mentioned the BATNA, but you've got to be willing to say enough and say to that hard bargaining negotiator, "We're done." And you've got to be comfortable with the fact that that might mean that the negotiation does not come to fruition, that a deal is not made, but you've got to be comfortable saying, "I've had enough," calling out the tactics and saying, "We're done. When you're ready to have a negotiation that is honest, that is fair, that is collaborative, whatever term you want to use, call me, but that this is not happening," and you show strength in that ability to walk away.

Dan Freehling (00:25:33):

Yeah. We work with a lot of job seekers on negotiating their job offers. And oftentimes it'll be, "Okay, what is my BATNA if I don't have a job currently?" And what we've come to really is continuing to look for a job can be its own BATNA — can be, "I'm willing to walk away. I'm willing to just keep on the search and I don't have to take whatever this first offer is if it's not something that's going to work for me."

Eirik Gislason (00:25:55):

Absolutely, absolutely. And yeah, there's a lot to talk about there when it comes to negotiating salary, an increase in salary or a job offer, there's a lot to be discussed there and some of the similar things that we just talked about will come into play.

Dan Freehling (00:26:12):

Yeah. Let's get right into that. What would you advise someone who is negotiating a big job offer?

Eirik Gislason (00:26:18):

So the first thing I will say is you do have to have a value proposition. You have to go into that negotiation, understanding what your value is. What is it that you are already doing if you're currently there or if you're changing from one similar role to another company? So what is it that you've already done to establish value in that role or what will you do? And that's something that I think that a lot of job seekers or people who are looking for a raise or a new position, they think that the other side should assume or should have... They assume that the other side has that information, that the other side knows why they deserve the salary that they're asking for or the new position that they're asking for. And the reality is, is that we have to toot our own horn, that we have to get comfortable with the fact that we are responsible for showing our value to the other side.

(00:27:22) So that's one, is we have to have a value proposition. We have to be able to explain what benefits that we are bringing to the table that are going to have value to that organization, especially compared to or in contrast to any other candidates that they're looking at. What makes you uniquely qualified to have this position? And sometimes that's uncomfortable for people, but the better you are at understanding that conversation, it's going to lead to all of the other things that we'll talk about that will be an advantage for you in the negotiation. We talked about a BATNA and you mentioned it. You're absolutely right. You have to have a BATNA in your salary negotiations. And it can be that I'm going to continue looking. You have to negotiate from a place of confidence, but it can be that, look, I'm comfortable taking this job search further to make sure that I find the organization, the company that sees the value that I bring to the table and is willing to compensate me properly or is willing to give me the job that I'm seeking, I don't have to take the first opportunity that I see.

(00:28:34) And that's hard. That's hard for us just from how we're wired perspective, especially from like somebody wants me, oh great, that we feel that elation that, okay, there's a safety and security and the dopamine fix of this person wants to hire me. Now they're paying me half of what I actually want, but isn't this great that they want me? And again, sticking to those goals and understanding what your minimum and maximum goals are is going to be very important in that situation. The other thing I'll say is, I think a mistake that people make is that when they go into a negotiation, oftentimes there's a power position in a negotiation when the putting down the anchor. So oftentimes a company will walk in and they'll say, "Well, the position pays $70,000." And so they'll tell you right off the bat. And so you're like, "Okay, 70."

(00:29:29) "Shoot, I was thinking 90, but they're telling me 70. So I guess it's 70, right?" They've now put down the marker and you're kind of in your mind accepting that as truth as opposed to a negotiable position. And so you have a responsibility to also anchor. And what we want to do as negotiators is we want to anchor at the highest justifiable position, right? If I'm in a real estate negotiation and I'm representing a Seller, I want to understand what our highest negotiable position is. What is a reasonable thing to ask for? Now, our strategy might not be to ask for the most possible list price that we could because we might be thinking about competition, things like that. But I want to know what is the highest justifiable anchor if we were to do that? Is it a million? Is it a million two?

(00:30:24) Is it 800,000? Now, if I'm working for the buyer and we're going to put in an offer, I want to come in with the lowest justifiable anchor that I can. I want to get a counter offer from the other side, but if they're willing to accept my first anchor as justifiable, now I've, just like a bully, will try to bring the negotiation to that 300 level we talked about. I've now changed middle point in that negotiation because I've gotten my offer. It's been deemed as credible. And now the other side is going to counter my offer, but I've already started to move middle point on that negotiation. So we want to know what our highest and lowest justifiable position is. And that requires research. That requires that you go out there and find out what are people in your position with your experience getting paid for this job.

(00:31:20) Can you bring in data? Can you actually bring in information that will justify that this is a $90,000 position, not a $70,000 position? And at the end of the day, they may not be willing or able to pay you $90,000. So this brings me to one of the other, the last thing that I'll mention. That is understanding all of the value elements that come into play when you're applying for a new position or looking for a raise or a new title within an organization.

(00:31:54) The salary is not the only lever to pull. And oftentimes, especially in entry level positions, people will get stuck because the HR professional on the other side of that negotiation will essentially say, "We don't negotiate salary. Everybody gets the exact same salary when they start," and they'll use that social proof or that they'll use that idea that everybody's on the same playing field as a way to tell you, "You don't get to negotiate this." So what I often will tell people that I help with salary negotiations, and I have, is what are some of the other elements that might be at play? Are there performance bonus elements that might be at play? Are there signing bonus elements? Okay, you can pay me $70,000, but you can also give me a $20,000 sign-on bonus, payable $10,000 when I sign my agreement and $10,000 in month six when I've completed six months of employment.

(00:32:54) Now, you're taking on a little bit of the risk on that second 10,000 that you're actually going to be there in six months, but that might be a way for you to get to that $90,000 number that you want. Are there performance metrics that you can institute or you can ask them to put on the table as a way for you to supplement what they are willing to give you in a salary with ultimate value? Are there training opportunities? Can you get a budget for continuing education? Can you get somebody to work with you or for you? Can you get a mentor? All of these things that actually have value for you as a job seeker, it may not be something that is directly salary related, but there are so many things that you can ask for. And what you find is when you negotiate those non-salary elements or non-price elements, now you start to see what the other side values more.

(00:33:49) Are they willing to put you into a mentorship program? Do they have one? If they don't, then maybe they are willing to say, "You know what? We don't have a mentorship program. Okay, you know what? We'll do the signing bonus," right? And they'll negotiate with you.

Dan Freehling (00:34:03):

Yeah. Those are all right on from my experience and would encourage everyone listening and watching to take those into account as you're approaching a negotiation. Eirik, I'm really glad you brought up this guilt tripping with saying, "This is the salary, this is what it is." And I think this is something that I have not heard talked about a lot, but there's so much of a push, rightly so, for more salary transparency. And I think that's 98% correct, right? I think that's a very good thing. We should have much more salary transparency. We should have positions saying what they're going to be paying people in terms of a range and sticking to that. I have seen this be used to low ball people and it's just the salary is this and it's ridiculous. And I've seen it put out as 20, $30,000 less than that position should really be paying.

(00:34:54) And they're just trying to say, "In the name of equity, in the name of transparency, we're going to low ball everyone and stick with that." And I think it's an important thing to be on the lookout for and to be ready to counter. And I think you've given such a strong way to do that, which is, okay, if this is going to be well below market rate, I know market rate, I've researched it, here's my proof, here's what I can bring to the table. And if this is actually what it is, then this is other stuff I would like or I'm going to be having to walk away, unfortunately. And I think that puts people in such a better position.

Eirik Gislason (00:35:28):

100%. I'll give you an example that I just dealt with. One of the people that I'm coaching called me today and he's got an interesting situation in a real estate transaction and there's something having to do with an issue from an inspection that they did on a house and he's representing the buyer. And the listing agent, essentially, when he went back to him and said, he just kind of asked, he's not negotiating, he's just throwing it out there. And he said, "Would the seller be willing to participate in the repairs of any of these things or the fixes that are going to be required that are going to be meaningful in terms of cost?" And the listing agent said to him, "No, but it's as is. The seller's not going to give you anything." So he's on the phone with me and he's like, "I know that they're not going to be willing to negotiate here. They're not going to be willing to give anything."

(00:36:22) And I said, "How do you know that?" And he said, "Well, he told me that." And I said, "Okay, there is a difference between someone telling you what they will do in a negotiation and someone doing that thing in an actual negotiation. You have not started a negotiation with them. Nothing's real. It's all hypothetical." And so you coming to him and saying, "Would your seller participate? What do you think the answer's going to be?" I mean, if I'm on the listing side of that transaction, I know that if I say to them, "Yeah, my seller's reasonable, they'll probably give you some money. So just tell me what you're looking for," I've just given away a tremendous amount of power on behalf of my seller. So the only reasonable answer for me, if asked that question outside of a real negotiation is, "No, I don't think that's going to happen." And so we have to understand that when somebody says something like that, anchors says something that isn't... We're not in a negotiation.

(00:37:26) They're making a statement. This is what you get paid. They're not negotiating with you. They're just telling you something. Now the question is, is that real? And when you establish value and start negotiating with them and you have a BATNA, a walkaway position, you're not tied to this outcome and you're willing to say, "If I don't get what I believe I'm worth, I'm going to keep looking or choose another option." Now you're going to really see if that's their number and you can't get there until you actually engage in a real negotiation. And I think we often do that. We take what somebody says to us as gospel, as the truth. And really, another example, one of my wife's family members, I will leave it at that, used to be in an HR position and she would be responsible for onboarding or having the final conversation, onboarding conversation with a new hire.

(00:38:23) She knew what the range of salary was. And she was asked by her boss, and it was her job to walk in and give them an offer that was about 30% lower than what they would actually allow for that first time position. And she's like, "It shocked me how many people just said yes." And she couldn't say a thing because she's representing the company. She can't say, "Just ask for more, just ask for more." She has no right to do that. And all they would have had to do is ask for more. They wouldn't even have to do... I mean, all they would have had to do is say, "I'm not comfortable with that. What else can we make it X?" And the answer would have been yes, because she knew she had a range to work with.

Dan Freehling (00:39:04):

It's so right. And it's helping the other side help you. And I love this point of realizing that they're a professional who has professional interests in protecting their side of the negotiation and they're not somebody who actually wants you to accept that low ball offer at the beginning. Oftentimes these are decent people who are put in this position to have to negotiate on behalf of their folks and keep that. Yeah. My business partner, Spencer and I, he has a concept actually that knowledge is bargaining power, which I like a lot with being able to bring in all of this knowledge of the types of salaries and everything. And then we've developed a joint talk now on negotiating for altruists. So this is really negotiating for people in the social impact sphere. And one of the biggest concepts we have in that is just negotiate, just do it.

(00:39:52) Not negotiating is a bad option. Yes. So just at least always participate in the negotiation and try to ask for more. And yeah, it's shocking how many people don't actually negotiate at all, never mind all of the nuances of how to negotiate well.

Eirik Gislason (00:40:08):

Yeah. Yeah. Just go in, just practice with this. And I think this is from This American Life. They had a segment on This American Life on negotiation. And I can't remember one of the correspondents or one of the participants that did a lot of stories there went out and just basically, whether it was a restaurant or a department store, he just said, "Do you have a good guy discount?" I really love the good guy discount. And that kind of humor or that way of entering the negotiation, I think it was like, I can't remember what the stat was, but it was far greater than 0% where the person on the other side of the counter was like, "I think we've got... Let me give you this discount or that discount." Maybe it wasn't that they called the good guy discount, but they had something that they could do.

(00:40:58) They had a 10% off coupon that was good only for inside members for that day. And they would say, "You know what? Here, I'm going to give you this discount for today." They had the ability to do it. All he had to do is ask, and he just did it with that one question, "Do you have a good guy discount?"

Dan Freehling (00:41:15):

I remember that episode. It's a great one to bring up. That's awesome.

(00:41:20) You went through the Harvard Law School negotiation program. What were some of the things you learned that you weren't expecting to learn? Because you came in already being a seasoned pro, already being a really strong negotiator, I'm imagining. What were some things that surprised you from that?

Eirik Gislason (00:41:38):

It was an unbelievable experience. And you're right, it's one of these programs where it's not like an intro negotiation class. The people that are in that program, the first thing that was amazing to me about it, the people that are in that program are from all over the world. So we're there, when I did it, it was during COVID, so it was virtual. So you have a small group, it's confined to a small group of professionals, men, women from all over the world. So you had people that were 12 hours ahead or six hours ahead. So there are people on all different time zones who are dedicated to this program and it's not inexpensive. So you've got a lot of buy-in. And you've got a lot of people who are in very powerful positions who have decided that they need this education, or they're coming back for the second, third, or fourth class because there's just so much value that can be offered in any stage of your negotiation career.

(00:42:41) But I'll tell you the one thing that was probably the most fascinating for me and that I wasn't anticipating it to be a part of the course is talking about multilateral negotiations. Negotiations where, and so we did exercises where we were representing different NGOs or representing different organizations who were trying and the country that we were working with, we were trying to all satisfy the needs of our organization or our state in order to come to a deal. And what's fascinating to me is in a real estate transaction, which is where a lot of my dealings are, you have two principles. As I said, you have those related third parties that you need to minimally or marginally satisfy. You have your mortgage professional and your title rep and your attorney and Uncle John from Poughkeepsie, you have all of these people who are kind of tangentially involved in the transaction, but for the most part, you have two parties.

(00:43:43) Maybe in an estate sale, you've got a few parties that have competing interests on the sell side of a deal, but it's just not something that we have to do on a regular basis. So entering into those exercises where we were given our position, what we could give away, what we were willing to accept, and these exercises are so well formulated, they're so beautiful. And so you're told what you want to do, and this is the goal. This is your minimum goal. And how do you achieve what you want, but also in order to get what you want, you have to speak on side deals with different people, with the understanding that if you're speaking with that person, they may be speaking to someone else. They may be looking at their interest and going, "Hm, who's going to give me the better deal?" There has to be a leadership component because there's nobody facilitating that negotiation.

(00:44:44) So somebody's got to step up and be the trusted member of that negotiation that is going to facilitate a conversation. And it's important that that person either have a significant interest or maybe a larger interest in the outcome or that they're just trusted by everyone else. So how do you establish that trust with a group that you don't know? And especially we were from different countries, but we weren't specifically from the countries in the exercise that we're doing. So we didn't have the same cultural issues that would arise from a multilateral negotiation, but we did have some cultural differences. So it was really fascinating to try to go, okay, you're like, "Okay, I think I can do this. I can work this out." So you go to someone who you think might be able to help you achieve your goals, and then next thing you know, there's somebody who's like, "No, I'm sorry.

(00:45:43) I'm going to walk away from this." And there's no deal unless there is a deal that everybody's involved in. And that was, I think, maybe the most fun, but also the most fascinating part of that course.

Dan Freehling (00:45:54):

Yeah, that sounds both super fun and fascinating. It's reminding me of... So I was in a model UN as a kid.

(00:46:01) Even in Drew College and hosting a conference for high school students to come and do this. And I always say it's some of the best leadership development you can possibly do to be put in a position like this of you're representing this country or this position and you have to go and part of it is facilitated and part of it is out in the hallway and you have to make coalitions with all the other students and figure out all of this, how these dynamics go. And it's just something I'd really encourage everyone to be doing if they have kids or if they're in a position to join this as a student because it's so fascinating and you really learn a ton about how to do this.

Eirik Gislason (00:46:37):

Absolutely. Those things for children at a young age, it's so important. I mean, we talk about how great children are as negotiators, negotiating like a child and understanding some of those innate skills that we kind of lose as we get older because we get so tied up in outcomes where the ego is so... we're driven by ego. We're afraid to be intrusive by being ceaselessly curious and like all of those things that kids do, if we could then take that before they lose it and give them a context where it actually works and they can see it in front of them, having value and creating value for other people while creating value from themselves. If we can instill that or keep that within our children so that they don't lose it as they get older, they stop asking questions, things like that. If we can harness that, it would be a beautiful, beautiful thing.

Dan Freehling (00:47:42):

So Eirik, you work with a lot of experienced negotiators who have a lot on the line in terms of their jobs and their prosperity and all of this kind of stuff. What is something you see even the most experienced New York realtors get wrong in negotiations?

Eirik Gislason (00:47:58):

A lot. I mean, I think that oftentimes our ego takes over and we just forget some of the... we forget to take that deep breath, let our prefrontal cortex come back in and let us reason through things. So a lot of times we're reacting to things and that takes us out of our game. So I'll mention a few things. And I've got an ebook that I wrote that is designed exactly for this question and it's the five negotiation mistakes that are costing you money and outcomes. So I'll go through... those are, in my opinion, some of the best that I can offer any negotiator at any stage in their career, but sometimes it's, I'll just mention a few tactical things that I think are often a mistake that's making price the primary focus, always focusing on price and eliminating all of the other value elements in a deal just being myopic, that can be a very big problem.

(00:48:57) Not understanding the different decision maker types. We talked about the analytic thinker, the expressive humanist, the collaborative feeler, and the assertive driver, not understanding who you're communicating with, what their behavioral cues are and how they communicate is a mistake in delivering a value proposition, in creating value and all of that. Trying to pre-negotiate a deal, like I said, having the conversation and going, "Hey, do you think they'd participate in solving this problem with the inspection?" Nope, they won't. And taking that as actually a negotiation as opposed to just a statement, an anchor. So pre-negotiating a deal can sometimes get in people the way. So those are all just like tactical errors, but the ones that I talk about in the ebook are, some of them are pretty classic, but always important. One of them is negotiating positions rather than interests. We get caught up in positional bargaining in these stands, and instead of trying to understand what the underlying area of concern is, what the other person wants, what is of interest to that other person, as opposed to fighting them where they are or the thing that they said, that's a big mistake.

(00:50:12) The second is, and stop me if you have questions, if you want to talk about any of these, but I'll just kind of rifle through them.

Dan Freehling (00:50:17):

Yeah, go through them. This is great.

Eirik Gislason (00:50:18):

Talking too much and asking too little. That idea I mentioned, ceaseless curiosity, which is what I like to, the term I like to use, that childlike curiosity where we ask multiple questions in many different ways to try to gain intel and frame in the position of the other side, the answer to the problem you're trying to solve. The more questions we can ask in different ways in order to get more information, the better we are. And oftentimes we are so busy talking about the experience we've had, what we think the outcome will be, what we believe the assumptions or the conclusions are of our client or our counterpart in a negotiation. We're so busy telling people how we think it is or what we've done in the past that we forget to just keep that channel open, that ceaseless curiosity open so that we can learn more. The third is, you mentioned at the top, treating a negotiation like a zero sum game, not understanding that we all value things differently.

(00:51:26) We do not place the same value on purchase price or on salary, on the risk that's associated with that negotiation, with all of the different elements in the negotiation. If you can understand what the other side wants and what's of value to them and how they rank those value elements, then you can identify exchanges and that's where value is created. That's at the core of collaborative negotiation is identifying those exchanges that can be made to make that pie bigger. So just treating a negotiation like a zero sum game, letting emotion drive strategy, we talked about ego, but letting emotions get in the way, that idea of emotional flooding, getting emotional in a deal, taking things personally, and letting that drive your next question, your next tactic, your next strategy is a mistake. And then last, confusing confidence with aggression or avoidance. And we talked about Minnesota nice, but confusing what confidence is.

(00:52:34) And if you're looking at it, if it's coming at you with the other negotiator and they are being aggressive, we oftentimes fall back to this position, well, they must be powerful. They must have status. They must have belonging in groups, all of those, right? They must have all of that because they seem like they're so confident. They're so successful. And so make sure not to mistake confidence for aggression. And then when you're doing it, you don't have to be aggressive to come off as confident. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Those are the five that I think really stand out to me.

Dan Freehling (00:53:12):

Yeah. I would definitely encourage people to check out that ebook on these different—

Eirik Gislason (00:53:15):

Find it on my website and just give me your email address and I'll send you the ebook. It's at archwaypartnersinc.com.

Dan Freehling (00:53:23):

Beautiful. On these different types, could you tell us a bit more about these and kind of how can people identify which one they're predominantly showing and then how do they tell what other people are showing up as?

Eirik Gislason (00:53:36):

So I'll reiterate that the four types, and they do follow quite closely to the DISC profile, if you're familiar with the DISC profile. But you've got the assertive driver, the collaborative feeler, the expressive humanist, and the analytic thinker. And they are very different. I mean, the two more introverted of the four are the, surprisingly, or believe it or not, the analytic thinker and the assertive driver. And then the more extroverted of the two would be the expressive humanist and the collaborative feeler. But what's important about those four decision maker types in a negotiation, especially if you're delivering a value proposition to a potential client, if you can identify them as... they could be a mixture of a couple of them, but if you can identify what type of behavior, what type of personality type they are, then you can pick up on behavioral cues and then you can start to communicate with them the way that they want to be communicated.

(00:54:36) A couple of high level things I'll say, like the assertive driver, they don't want to be your friend. They don't want to read your testimonials. They don't want to pet your dog or talk about your family. What they want is for you to tell them how you are uniquely qualified to help them, to identify their problem, and to tell them how you're going to solve it, to bring data to the table, to have real concrete data that is going to show them what the answer is and that you can interpret for them. So that's important to them. That's the way they like to communicate. They may say, "I have 10 minutes. I have 10 minutes to be on a meeting with you. That's it. Call me and tell me how you're going to solve my problem."

(00:55:17) So by identifying them, by having someone who gives you that short timeline, who seems very Type A, they seem very aggressive as a negotiator. They seem even sometimes like a jerk, that's assertive driver. It's not that they're a jerk, or at least they may not be a jerk, maybe they will be, but any decision maker type can be a jerk, but they come off as very abrasive. And for someone, if you are an expressive humanist, if you're somebody who is more into storytelling and is more into feelings and is more into like the win, win, win, where there's actually that third win where everybody just, the organization or the society as a whole benefits from this deal, right? If you're that type of a negotiator, that's what fuels you and that's what you want out of a negotiation, then you're going to feel like this person's coming at you a hundred miles an hour and it's going to feel uncomfortable and you're going to not vibe with that person.

(00:56:14) And oftentimes we walk away from negotiations, we weren't vibing, we just didn't jive, right? When in reality, they could just be a different type of person and a different style of communication. And does that mean that there can't be a relationship there or a deal to be made there? Absolutely not. In fact, an assertive driver will be your best source of referrals and your most loyal client till the day they die because they've finally found someone who can do for them what they've been looking for someone to do for them, who can execute and get the job done. So if you can get that success with an assertive driver, they will be an incredible client for life for you, but they're never going to want to hang out with your family. That's not going to happen. And then on the other side, I'll talk about the other kind of introverted side as the analytic thinker, that's the kind of person that is going to want more time.

(00:57:10) Once they make a decision, they're ready. They're ready to make it, but it takes them a long time to get there. They want to see data, they want to really process everything. So if you're the kind of person who schedules back to back to back meetings, you got a four o'clock, you got a five o'clock, you got a six o'clock, and at 4:45 you're like, "Shoot, I got to get out of here to my next meeting." And you're with an analytic thinker, you may lose them by getting up and having to go to your five o'clock because they need until six o'clock and maybe you should actually just schedule a happy hour or dinner after that two hour meeting so that you get them, you stay in front of them and give them every bit of information that they need in order to make a decision or to understand that you're the right person for them.

(00:57:52) And then of collaborative feeler, I mentioned expressive humanist — collaborative feelers in a similar way. They want to be a part of the process. They want you to bring them along, they want to collaborate, they want to look at your testimonials, they want to see how you took care of that other person. They want to see the effusive prose and like all of the wonderful language about how caring and professional you were. That means something to them. And so that's kind of an overview of a little bit. I have a whole class that I teach that's like a seven hour class on just drilling into these different decision makers. So it's a longer conversation, but that gives you a sense.

Dan Freehling (00:58:31):

It's phenomenal and the different approaches to the different types I think is especially helpful for people. And I love that. Then none of them is necessarily better or worse than another type as a client. And it's just recognizing this being able to meet the moment.

Eirik Gislason (00:58:47):

That's right. And understanding that you're going to have situations where you're going to be negotiating with partners, a couple, a mother and daughter, you're going to have multiple people that are principals in the negotiation on the other side of the deal and they may have different negotiations or the different personality types. They may fit into these different categories and you want to make sure that what happens a lot of times in our negotiations is the loudest voice gets the most attention. So the stronger personality, the assertive driver of the group may be the one that you focus your attention on to try to satisfy their needs. Meanwhile, there are two other people in that room who are an analytic thinker or a collaborative feeler that are different and because you're really gearing your conversation toward the most forceful personality, you might lose the ground with the others.

(00:59:42) So really understanding and being in tune with who's in the room and how they communicate and just meeting them where they are can be very, very impactful. And then you walk away from that. If you are someone who's an expressive humanist, you walk away from that meeting with an assertive driver and you just get them a little bit better. You're like, "Okay, I understand it. That's okay. I don't have to talk about my dog. They don't have to pet my dog. We can still do a deal. We can still have a relationship, a business relationship, and I can do the best possible job for them and be the right agent for them, but we're just going to have a different relationship than some of my other clients."

Dan Freehling (01:00:20):

You mentioned a bunch of books already, negotiation. What books or other resources of any kinds would you recommend the listeners check out?

Eirik Gislason (01:00:30):

Well, I'm a big fan of podcasts. Yours included. I mean, when we connected, I was like, "Okay, now I've got another deep dive that I can go down into in another podcast." And I love that. I love when I can just binge multiple episodes of a new podcast. So thank you for giving me that opportunity. But I'll mention a couple others aside from your podcast that I really like. One is if we're talking about negotiation. So if you want an approachable podcast on negotiation that is really, really brilliant, it's a podcast called Negotiate Anything, which you probably know that's probably the most popular negotiation podcast. The guy named Kwame Christian is the host of that podcast. That's a great... if you want to have an approachable podcast about how to understand buyer psychology, our own psychology, the negotiations in general, great one. There's another one that I just about maybe six months ago was turned onto by a colleague, which it takes a lot of work to get through it, but it's a podcast called Solved.

(01:01:38) Do you know this podcast?

Dan Freehling (01:01:40):

I don't know this one, no.

Eirik Gislason (01:01:41):

It's a guy named Mark Manson, who's a New York Times bestselling. So this is Mark Manson's podcast. And he and his colleague, his researcher, what they do essentially is they'll go away for three weeks and they'll research a topic like resilience. And they will then approach this topic from a historical perspective, from a psychological perspective. They will drill down on this topic for like three hours. I mean, literally this is a long podcast. You got to watch it or listen to it in multiple sittings. But it is so fascinating because they leave no stone unturned and they really get you thinking about how thought leaders think about this. They'll bring in other people who have spoken or who have written about this topic. They'll go way back in history to really find the roots linguistically of the roots, what it actually means. It's just fascinating. So it's called Solved. So I highly recommend that one as well. Oh, and then I've got one that I love just for fun. I'm kind of a white collar crime junkie.

(01:02:55) I don't like bullies as we talk about. I like to see the bad guy get taken down. And so there's a podcast that I love. There's two women who are journalists who have a podcast called Scamfluencers. Do you know this podcast? I don't. Oh my God.

Dan Freehling (01:03:11):

You're our second kind of white collar crime junkie. So this is great. And I'm sure Peter is the other one who'll probably like this one.

Eirik Gislason (01:03:18):

Yeah. It started for me with the Enron, The Smartest Guys in the Room, that documentary. Oh my God, I've watched that documentary like 40 times. I can't get enough of it. But that kind of just the... I mean, from a negotiation, what happens? What happens through the course of the way that it develops and what they think they're getting away with, all of that stuff. But this podcast, these women are phenomenal. They're so fun. And they'll just take a person in history, could be recent, could be far in the past, and they'll tell the story of their scam or what they did. And they're just a lot of fun. So I'll put that one out there if you're just looking for a fun podcast called Scamfluencers. And now two books I'll recommend. One, I recommended a couple of other books, but the seminal work, the work that I think if you haven't read it, you need to read is Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury from the Harvard Program.

(01:04:22) In fact, William Ury wrote a book subsequent to that called Getting to Yes with Yourself, which is kind of almost a prequel to Getting to Yes, but it was written afterwards. But that is considered a collaborative negotiation Bible, I guess you could say. But it's a must read for anybody who's into negotiations called Getting to Yes. And then the other one is not... I love Adam Grant. It's not his most recent book, which I have admittedly have yet to read, but his last book, Think Again, The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know. That book is fascinating. So I highly recommend anything Adam Grant writes, but that book was... I found that to be really fascinating.

Dan Freehling (01:05:02):

Okay, cool. We will put the links to those in the show notes and encourage people to check those out and 100% to Getting to Yes as kind of the cornerstone negotiation book that underlies a lot of this. So really glad you brought that up for people if they haven't checked that out already. Yeah. Eirik, all of the different ways that you work with people are genuinely fascinating to me. Do you mind just kind of going through those in brief and then how can people get in touch with you, follow along, learn more if they want to reach out to you and engage you for any of these?

Eirik Gislason (01:05:30):

Yeah. Well, if you're in the real estate space, I have a real estate coaching company. Now, what I do in my company really revolves around collaborative negotiation. It's kind of the jumping off point for all of the coaching that I do. And I think there's a breadth of where we can go as a coach using that coach approach, starting off with this idea of how do we view ourselves? How do we view the people around us? How do we view buyer psychology? And so that's become the jumping off point for my overall coaching. So my coaching is specifically a real estate coaching company, but I coach a lot of people outside of the industry as well. But my coaching company is Archway Partners Coaching, and that's at archwaypartnersinc.com. And if you are a real estate professional, we've created this platform called the Partners Experience, and it's full of videos and modules, exercises, scripts, motivational tools.

(01:06:35) We have a whole month long series on... we called it the Confidence Curriculum, and it's a daily two or three minute video, 10 minute exercise, and it just is designed over the course of a month to really help you start to build that higher level of self-confidence. So if you are a real estate professional looking for something, the Partners Experience is a phenomenal platform and I highly recommend it. And then you can find all of that on my website. I'm a real estate professional in New York City, and I have a team called the Excelsior Team at Brown Harris Stevens, this company I'm with. I've been there for 20 years or been in real estate for 20 years, been with Brown Harris Stevens for the last 10. And we do residential sales, rentals in New York City, all residential, co-ops, condos, single family, multifamily homes throughout Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan.

(01:07:27) And then I have a podcast as well called Shear Line and it's a negotiation podcast called Shear Line: Negotiation Mastery. And Shear Line is actually the imagery comes from a tumbler lock. When you put the key into the lock, the pins line up and create this imaginary line called the shear line that allows you to open the door. So that's the idea behind Shear Line is really trying to unlock these different facets of negotiation and give us a better understanding of how we negotiate, how we understand each other. And we're about 20 episodes into that podcast. So there's a lot. You can go binge watch and binge. It's on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts. You can binge watch or binge listen to Shear Line for a long time because my episodes are about an hour long each or about 50 minutes long each.

Dan Freehling (01:08:14):

We would definitely encourage folks to check out the podcast. And if you're a real estate professional in the market for a great coach or just a general person in the market for a great coach, you can't go wrong with Eirik. And then also if you're in the market for real estate, working with one of the good guys is hopeful something that—

Eirik Gislason (01:08:31):

Work with one of the good guys. I think that should be our motto.

Dan Freehling (01:08:33):

Tagline, right?

Eirik Gislason (01:08:35):

That's right.

Dan Freehling (01:08:36):

And Eirik comes with the full endorsement of my own mentor coach, Amy, who... anyone gets Amy's endorsement, they're golden in my book.

Eirik Gislason (01:08:45):

We should probably just say hi to Amy. Hi, Amy.

Dan Freehling (01:08:47):

Absolutely. Yes, one of our loyal listeners. So Eirik, thank you so much again for taking the time to walk everyone through all of these negotiating lessons, and we really appreciate it.

Eirik Gislason (01:08:58):

Thanks, Dan. It's been a pleasure. Thank you for having me on.