Originally Published 2008

The negotiator stared across at the thirty seven year old man sitting on the front stoop of his house holding a gun in his lap and threatening to use it on himself or anyone who tried to approach him. They have been talking for just over two hours and the negotiator feels like he is not gaining any ground. The P.A. system he has been using was grating on the nerves of all involved so he elected to try to talking directly to the man by raising his voice so he could hear him from his position of cover on the far side of the patrol cruiser parked in the driveway of the middle class home. The result was that he was beginning to lose his voice and he is having difficulty hearing the man’s quiet and depressed words. His coach has noted that when he does speak, he only speaks in the past tense, never talking about future events.  The subject’s body language could only be described as beaten down, tired and dejected. He is leaning forward with his shoulders slouched and his head staring down at into the barrel of the gun.

From his vantage point, the negotiator can now see beads of sweat trickling down the man’s forehead and fall onto the upturned barrel and then continue down onto his thumb that is resting across the trigger of the black simi-automatic pistol. While the outside temperature is only 70 degrees, he also feels the trickle of sweat beads run from his own brow and his ballistic vest feels wet and clammy against his skin. He notices that he is suffering from a variety of stress related issues such as the tunnel vision and hyper-vigilance that is allowing him to focus on the path of the subjects sweat beads, difficulty thinking and focusing on what the subject is saying (cognitive dysfunction), as well as rapid respirations and time distortions.

He has negotiated with dozens of suicidal people in the past and each has been different but none have evoked this level of emotional response. This one is different because the subject is one of us; the person in crisis in this instance is another law enforcement officer, family.

If the statistics hold true, the officer with whom he is negotiating is most likely going to be a male, with ten to twelve years on the job. This officer is likely suffering some degree of depression and is self-medicating with alcohol or some other chemical substance. Additionally, the officer’s family may have recently drawn the line saying, “Enough is enough” and they are now separated from their family. Finally, this officer, who we issued the very ammunition and pistol he is pointing at himself along with training that we gave him on how to effectively use it, may be the subject of an administrative inquiry/investigation or disciplinary action at work possibly resulting in the termination of his employment as a law enforcement officer.

Most Crisis Negotiators have negotiated many times with a mentally ill person who has self-medicated with alcohol or other chemical substances or negotiated with people who have lost their jobs and/or their families (The Double Whammy) as a result. Negotiating with another officer may be one of the most difficult negotiations we may ever have to attempt as a crisis negotiator. While we may have certain advantages as we enter into the negotiation, those very advantages may also become liabilities as we continue the process. The fact that he is a law enforcement officer may allow the negotiator some advantages such as:

• Rapport is often already built; we hold a common bond as law enforcement officers.
• It is easier for us to empathize with what they may be going through.
• Background information is generally easier to obtain.

There are also some disadvantages we must consider such as:

• We represent an agency they may have trust issues with at the moment.
• They may know many of our skills and tactics.
• They may blame us for not “helping them before it came to this”.
• A larger presence of Command staff as well as pressure to resolve the situation quickly and without any additional attention from the media, public or other employees.
• Other officers may hold us accountable for the outcome.

What makes negotiating with a law enforcement officer most difficult may be the two things that makes us good at doing the job in the first place; our strong sense of self (Persona) and our ability to maintain control.

Law enforcement, by its very nature, is a sub-culture that is very particular about whom it admits. Several studies have suggested that it takes an average of eighteen to twenty-four months to become fully indoctrinated into that sub-culture. Sometime around four to five years of service, many officers begin to experience difficulty separating their personal and professional lives thus creating a conflict in their sense of self. While they may see themselves as a parent, spouse, coach, etc., they tend to see themselves as a law enforcement officer first and everything else second. This conflict creates a persona that being a law enforcement officer is who they are and if they lose that, they have lost their identity and control of their life. After approximately ten to twelve years, some officers may begin to experience a form of “burn-out” and begin to exhibit forms of depression and behavior shifts that can lead to a variety of personal identity crises.

From the first day in the police academy we were trained to maintain control of ourselves and the environment around us. Most law enforcement officers can be classified as control freaks and are not willing to relinquish that control to others. The feelings that he may be experiencing about the loss of his family, job, and sense of self, exacerbated by depression and chemical abuse lead to feelings of helplessness spiraling out of control with no hope of recovery. As has been identified on numerous occasions, a simple formula of helplessness plus hopelessness equals suicide.

Many of these personality and behavior changes may be attributed to untreated chronic stress, unresolved critical incident stress or chemical imbalances. Whatever the cause, most can be dealt with through peer support, stress debriefings or professional mental or medical health assistance. Unfortunately, in most cases, law enforcement officers are the last to seek or accept these services resulting in a statistic indicating that law enforcement officers are four to five times more likely to commit suicide than the general public.

Negotiating with a fellow officer will require your full attention and the utilization of all of your skills as a negotiator. A few things that you must remember are:

1. Protect yourself; Remember that anyone who is willing to kill them self, may also be willing to kill you. Maintain a safe location of cover, wear your body armor and maintain a safe distance. Most officers already have the tools necessary to accomplish this; we issued it to them and then taught them how to use it.
2. Check your ego at the door before you begin. Don’t be judgmental or minimize the importance of their behavior. This may be their last effort at reaching out for help and they deserve someone who cares enough to help them.
3. We hold a common bond with the person with which we are negotiating; they are part of our law enforcement family. While we should never be placed in a situation where we are negotiating with family, this will probably be the only negotiation you will ever do with a family member. Try and maintain perspective no matter what the outcome.
4. Although most of us will not admit it, many of us have had, or known someone who has had the same thoughts and feelings as the person with whom we are negotiating. Use those experiences to build a stronger bond and rapport with the person in crisis.
5. Don’t forget the basics; Active Listening Skills or Reflective Listening Skills are the foundation of all negotiations. Most law enforcement officers don’t express their emotions very well or very often. Anger is one of the emotions that most officers recognize as a “safe emotion” to exhibit. Since anger is a secondary emotion, it usually covers deeper feelings of sadness, frustration or even physical and emotional pain. You may have to assist them by attaching a label to the ones you can identify and allow them to explore them more than you would with a civilian with which you are negotiating.
6. Scenario training for negotiators in dealing with a fellow officer should be part of any Advanced Negotiation class and team commanders should implement this scenario into their teams training schedule as often as possible. While you will be negotiating with another officer, finding and preparing the role player for this scenario is imperative to a successful conclusion.

Many of the techniques necessary to effectively negotiate with a fellow officer require that we let down our emotional guard to develop a better understanding of the person in crisis as well as building empathy and rapport. As a result we may become subjected to personal feelings and emotions that require us to deal with them during and immediately, or shortly after the event. Peer support debriefings are appropriate for all personnel involved in these events and should be made available for them.

There are a number of good resources for additional information on suicide intervention, statistics and more specifically, police suicides. Some of those include The Centers for Disease Control, the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention Web Site, The Pain Behind the Badge.com, The International Critical Incident Stress Foundation and the Federal Bureau of Investigations Behavioral Science Unit.

Originally Published in 2010

Almost every trained crisis negotiator remembers the first time they were introduced to the “Hostage phone” or the “Throw phone” during basic negotiation training. That complicated contraption of buttons and wires connecting to all sorts of recorders, speakers and headphones neatly contained in a stainless steel brief case would allow you do everything from recording your negotiation to allowing your coach or anyone else on the scene to hear every word being said. Most importantly, you could call them on their home phone, plug into their home phone jack, or deliver a dedicated phone (throw phone) to them. The most intimidating component of the system was the negotiators headset. Not because of any menacing physical construction associated with it, but the thought that the person wearing it is responsible for the direction of the communication, the thoughts about liability discussed earlier in the class and the real fear that you have no real clue what to say to the person on the other end of the call. After “your time in the barrel”, everyone is eager to relinquish that responsibility to the next student for their indoctrination as the primary negotiator. That may truly be the first real appreciation that many negotiators feel for your coach as well as that disconcerted feeling the negotiator realizes throughout a real crisis intervention.

As technology has progressed at an exponential rate within the mobile telephone industry, the problems and dilemmas associated with negotiations have increased as quickly. More often than not, negotiators find that the person in crisis, the negotiator, or both, are relying on their mobile phone to accomplish the communication. With this in mind, the potential for certain problems to arise must be considered and addressed by the negotiator.

When the person in crisis is utilizing a mobile phone:

One of the first issues to be addressed is attempting to confirm the location of the person in crisis. One phenomena of any R/F transmission such as that used by mobile telephones, whether they are using an analog or digital signal, is that it can reflect off of the terrain or atmosphere for long distances where it may be received by a tower many miles from the original transmission location. This will give a false coordinate to the receiving tower and may divert a call for assistance to the wrong emergency communications center. Such was a case where a person in crisis called 911 to report that he was driving on a major interstate with his two small children in the vehicle and was threatening to kill himself and the children. Local officers in the area of the interstate were notified to be on the lookout for the caller. After notifying crisis negotiators, they were able to make contact with the caller and after some time, were able to determine that the caller was in fact, eighty miles away. Law enforcement officers in that jurisdiction were notified and were able to locate the caller and to safely resolve the situation.  On a smaller scale, locating a person in crisis inside a residence or business is made more difficult because of the mobility associated with the technology. Old school negotiators might have marked the phone line on the throw phone in 10 foot increments to get an estimate of how far the caller was inside the building. This helped SWAT members develop and, if necessary, execute a planed entry or delivery of a negotiated item. This lack of physical information makes it more difficult for other components of the crisis team.

Another problem that may occur is the inability to limit features on mobile phones that were either not present on traditional land-line phones or features that could be controlled or disabled by the service provider. Features such as call waiting and caller ID allow the person in crisis to put the negotiator on hold and take a call from a third party. In most cases, the third party may honestly be attempting to help the situation but the potential for harm is ever present with every uncontrolled communication with the person in crisis. As trust and empathy are earned and built between the negotiator and the person in crisis, learning who those third parties are may be accomplished through eliciting information about them from the person in crisis. Utilization of our effective listening skills may allow us to identify who the calling party is based on the changes of the person’s attitude and emotional state after talking with that person. While we are attempting to identify the third party, assuring the person in crisis that they have the choice of answering the phone or not when that person calls will provide them with a sense of control that they may be lacking as a result of the crisis. By assuring them that if they chose to answer the other caller, you will still be there when they get back as well as encouraging them to promise that they will talk to you afterwards works to build trust and reassures them that you do care about them and that you are there for them.

Once that person is identified, another negotiator or one of the team members assigned intelligence gathering can attempt to contact that person. During the communication with them, that negotiator should attempt to determine if it is possible to 1. Elicit their assistance and employ them as a true third party intermediary; 2. Encourage that person to cooperate with your efforts to resolve the situation by discontinuing their attempts to communicate with the person in crisis; or 3. Simply occupying them while the negotiation continues. Gaining the trust of those third parties who are wishing to help or even those who are knowingly or not, part of the problem, is as important as gaining the trust and rapport of the person in crisis. This often results in simultaneous negotiations being conducted by the same team.

A technique that has been tried and successfully completed is for one negotiator to call the person in crisis and then a second negotiator call the same number. Most phones will allow only two simultaneous calls thus keeping other callers from accessing the line. Remember, most of those with whom we are dealing are not dumb, but generally just the opposite and have an above average intelligence. They are simply in a state of crisis with which they are unable to cope. When you apply the two negotiators tying up the phone lines technique, you may run the risk of the person in crisis playing one negotiator against the other and creating a competitive state between the negotiators resulting in one or both negotiators loosing the trust and rapport earned to that point.

A relatively new technology that blocks or jams cell service availability in a designated area can help control the person in crisis’ ability to make or receive calls during periods that the negotiator is not on the phone with them. This technique is similar to the previously available ability of a service provider, technically savvy SWAT member or technical support personnel to disconnect land line phone service from a structure. This could create an opportunity to introduce a throw phone to the person in crisis. These “cellular signal disrupters” or “jammers” are presently being utilized in areas where heightened security measures are in place and even in gaming casinos to prevent cellular transmissions for obvious reasons. These “disrupters or jammers” are not target specific or directional in nature. They generally work in a fashion similar to a radio transmission tower by sending a signal in a 365 degree radius that disrupts the other R/F signals with in the area. This will have a direct affect on the responding officers through disruption of the police radio transmissions, mobile data card transmissions as well as the officer’s mobile phones thus virtually terminating the Crisis Teams ability to communicate with each other. The Federal Communications Commission regulates the use of mobile phone jammers and signal blockers for this very reason. Every agency considering the use of this technology needs to understand the legality and ramifications of using it before deploying such.

When the negotiator is using a mobile phone;

One of the first concerns for the negotiator is how to allow your coach to be privy to both sides of the conversation. For many years this has been a dilemma without great resolve. A large number of negotiations have been accomplished through a negotiator holding the phone away from their ear in an effort to allow the coach to hear the person in crisis as well as the negotiator. This technique is very tiring and frustrating for both parties and is difficult to accomplish. Fortunately, the technology to allow negotiators to connect their mobile phones to existing “Crisis phone” systems is now available. There are presently several systems designed to allow for the digital mobile phones as well as utilizing wireless and hard-wired Voice-over-Internet Protocol (V.O.I.P.) phones to operate in the same manner as traditional crisis phone configurations. Many of these systems are add-ons to an existing system and are available through the various system providers.

As mentioned above, the technology associated with mobile phones allows for not only the person in crisis, but the negotiator to receive incoming calls through their call-waiting feature. It is imperative that the negotiator not put the person in crisis on hold to answer another incoming call. Many phones will give a signal to the person on the phone that they have another call incoming at the time. If the person in crisis hears this and becomes alarmed, the negotiator can reassure them that they are the most important person right now and they are not going to be put on hold while another phone call is answered. That is also a good time to negotiate an agreement with them that neither party will answer other incoming calls during the negotiation process. This agreement alleviates the issue of third party intermediaries and builds a great deal of trust and esteem for the person in crisis.

As many negotiations are mobile in nature and the command area is hastily contrived in a parking lot or an adjacent street within close proximity to the crisis site, negotiators often find themselves and their support team utilizing a vehicle as their Negotiation Operations Center (NOC). A larger Sport Utility Vehicle with a “hands free” component works well for that situation. It allows each of the team members to hear what is being said by both parties, allows close proximity to the negotiator by the coach(s), and offers a simi-private location from which to work.

Another issue that must be considered involves an ill-advised decision by the negotiator to attempt contact with the person in crisis while the negotiator is in route to the scene. As learned in basic negotiation training, negotiation is a team sport. It should be conducted with certain information available, assistance of a qualified coach and the support of a team leader and possibly a tactical team. Calling the person in crisis and initiating a negotiation alone, while driving at a high rate of speed, through various traffic conditions, with your police radio blaring and your emergency equipment on, is not the optimum circumstance to begin the trust building and empathetic understanding processes necessary to accomplish the objective.

One additional issue that cannot be overlooked involves that of officer safety. Many negotiations are attempted from locations that are not in the best interest of the negotiator and may involve a serious officer safety violation. When faced with the possibility of using the traditional “hostage phone” configuration, negotiators immediately search for a location that allows for the equipment and support personnel with which they are accustomed. The mobility of a mobile phone can lend to most police officers “control freak” personalities and offer the opportunity to move to a location that is closer to the situation and from where the negotiator can personally see things as they occur or to see the person with whom they are negotiating. This opportunity leads to many safety issues as the negotiator may not maintain the same level of officer safety as they normally ensure in any other situation. In addition, this may place their coach or other support members in danger as well. Remember, if you do not have your number blocked, the person with whom you are negotiating now has your phone number and you may hear from them again. Agencies may want to consider maintaining a specific mobile phone for negotiation situations to alleviate this problem.

When both of you are mobile;

There have been several reports and studies over the years that indicate that most crisis situations are typically initiated in the late evening and last for approximately six to eight hours. As many people charge their mobile phones at night, there is a chance that the phone battery may not be fully charged when the negotiation begins. Additionally, operating the phone in an area with limited service or “roaming” on a network other than that of the primary service provider will drain the mobile phone battery at a higher rate than usual. Remember, batteries run out of power at the most inopportune times. The person in crisis may be inside their own residence so they may have access to recharge their phone batteries where the responding officers may not. Ensure that there is access to phone chargers that plug into a 110 outlet as well as those that work in the 12 volt accessory plug in a vehicle. Having a second battery that can be changed during the negotiation is not a bad idea either.

While the advent of digital signal transmission from mobile phones is now the industry standard, always remember that it is just a radio transmitter and all conversations can potentially be monitored by the media or others. Like every piece of equipment in the negotiators arsenal, negotiating via a mobile telephone is a skill that must be practiced in training scenarios to ensure a comfort level for all persons associated with the negotiation. The early identification of potential problems and issues can be addressed in this low stress, training environment and resolutions discussed to develop an appropriate operational protocol for those situations.

Any technology the negotiator can use to assist in dealing with a crisis situation is certainly an asset but the most important part of any negotiation will always be the skilled negotiator, coach and support team utilizing the technology. Keeping an open mind and remaining flexible throughout the negotiation will assist greatly in resolving these crises’ peacefully and safely for all involved.

Originally published 2011

Yes, I said it, but no, I do not believe that any Sheriff, Police Chief or Command Staff personal should act in the capacity of negotiator during a classic critical incident negotiation. I am referencing the reality that a disproportionate amount of every police executive’s day is spent facilitating and applying those same negotiation skills utilized during a typical barricade, attempted suicide, or other event involving a person in crisis. These same skills are necessary to effectively influence behavior during interactions with governing legislative bodies to achieve budgetary or staffing objectives, as well as when dealing with personnel issues such as staffing solutions, promotions, or discipline.

Negotiation has been defined as the use of information and power to affect behavior in a “web of tension.” Conflict is a natural part of the process as participants work to maximize their gains and minimize their losses. Each party embarks into the negotiation with specific, pre-determined objectives, thus introducing their emotions and agendas into the process. As many of the concepts used by police executives have identifiable correlations to those skills applicable to crisis negotiations, it is no wonder that many negotiation teams are comprised of officers who possess those qualities desirable in each level of supervision and are often promoted to higher levels of responsibility. The skills and techniques learned and honed during various negotiation scenarios lend to those skills that make them a more desirable supervisor. With this in mind, I believe that law enforcement executives could benefit significantly from attending crisis negotiation training as part of their executive training protocols.

One of the primary concepts of crisis negotiation that best represents this correlative is that of the “Three C’s of Negotiation;” Context, Containment and Communication.

Context:

Assessment:   Every situation is viewed differently based on the agendas and paradigms of those involved. By effectively gathering as much information as possible prior to engaging with the other parties involved, better decisions are made using those practiced decision making concepts consistent with the individual executive’s management style. Often is the case in which decisions are based on flawed and/or limited information. This “knee-jerk” reaction or decision leads to poor planning in the initiation of the negotiation process, thus placing the executive or crisis negotiator at a disadvantage from the onset. By remembering the negotiation concept of lowering emotionality to increase rational cognitive function, executives and negotiators alike, set the stage for more advantageous interactions and resolutions.

Approach:        Armed with the most accurate information and a calm sense of emotion, the executive’s approach to the negotiation becomes driven primarily by their individual management and leadership style. One of the primary differences between an executive’s and a crisis negotiator’s approach to a situation is that of thinking strategically versus tactically. While strategic thinking is certainly applicable to crisis negotiations, the tactical concept should be consistently reinforced to help ensure the negotiator’s personal safety as they move to physical locations in an effort to facilitate verbal communications. A strategic approach allows executives greater application of problem solving concepts in promoting a vision and to define the direction of the process. When an executive employs a tactical approach, it may be construed as a non-verbal or psychological inference that they are hiding something, or posturing in a manner that best protects them from either internal or external harm. This may again place them in an unnecessary or unintended position of disadvantage as they work through the process.

Containment:

Physical Containment:            Crisis negotiators and first responders are taught to physically contain the crisis site in an effort to reduce escape of the offenders and reduce the possibility of injuries to others close to the situation. Executives may initiate similar actions by removing an employee from field service during an investigation into allegations of misconduct or by “standing up and taking a bullet for the troops” during budget conflicts or other controversy. By physically containing the process to those directly involved, others are better protected.

Crisis Climate:             Both executives and crisis negotiators alike, will certainly find the crisis climate exists as they begin the negotiation process. During this stage, the affected principal may realize a sense of feelings of being overwhelmed with contradictory information and/or opinions as to what actions or direction should be taken. In addition, the onslaught of external pressures from groups such as the media or collective bargaining representatives may promote this sense of confusion and crisis. Crisis negotiators are reminded that one of their initial responsibilities is to promote the concept that they are in control of everything outside of the crisis site where as the person with whom they are negotiating is in control of the inside. While a different form of control, executives must keep in mind that they too must remain in control of the situation through both verbal and non-verbal containment efforts. This sense of confidence and control lends itself to instill trust and confidence in the executive and the process itself, to others involved. The effective containment of a situation by either the executive, or negotiator, helps stop the spread of potential harm and begins to define the direction in which the process must move to achieve the desired outcome.

Communications:

Listening skills:                 Both Active Listening and Effective Listening skills set the stage for either group to listen for understanding of information, content, emotion and the underlying message being proffered by other parties in the process. Crisis negotiation training emphases these skills from the beginning and build most other skills around these primary listening concepts. By listening with the intent to understand, negotiators and executives alike, gain an advantage as they use these communication skills to promote the process while proceeding in a predetermined direction of the communication.

Additional Communication Tips:        In addition to those notations above, the following cautions should be keys to every crisis negotiators communication and are certainly as applicable to those same skill sets of police executive officers.

• Honesty and Consistency: Executives must ensure that their communications are consistent with their management style to make certain that during escalations in emotions, their credibility remains consistent throughout the process. Leadership based on honesty and character is rewarded with trust and loyalty from those lead. Spokane, Washington, Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick has noted that “consistency in executive leadership is paramount to establishing your credibility and reaffirming your character to others with whom you interact”. While police executives may work for years to build a reputation as an honest leader, crisis negotiators must learn to establish their credibility while dealing with a myriad of time constraints and radical emotional complexities. This is often accomplished by quickly building rapport and establishing trust with those persons in crisis. Executives and negotiators can each learn from the examples of the other when working to establish this trust and rapport.
• Word Bullets:             Like crisis negotiators, executives must be cognizant of the verbiage as well as the tone of delivery used during these processes. Certain words have an ability to promote unintended behaviors or send unintended messages. Words have the ability to open the lines of communication or to shut them down. They have the ability to engage productive communication or to put the message recipient on the defensive. Once again, resulting in an unintended interruption of the process.
• Verbal versus Non-verbal communication: Physical actions, body language and other non-verbal cues may relay conflicting messages provided during the verbal communiqué. Like work bullets, these intended and unintended messages have an affect on the process. By understanding these non-verbal cues, executives can ensure that verbal and non-verbal messages, along with their personal managerial reputation, remain consistent.
• Power and control: While you may hold many of the cards, knowing when to play them and how to manage them to affect the greatest result is important. As crisis negotiators have learned through many years of negotiations, you cannot solve others problems or meet their unrealistic expectations, but you may hold the ability to help them resolve those issues themselves. One of the shortcomings of this concept of negotiation is that while negotiators may work hard to take a kinder/gentler approach in garnering trust and rapport, they may fail to remember one of the basic law enforcement concepts; control and direction through command voice. When necessary, crisis negotiators and executives alike must learn how and when to assert authority over the situation in order to facilitate a specific outcome. Sometimes, others simply need someone in control to tell them what they need them to do in order to help them regain personal control of the event, emotions or their life. This should be a calculated and strategic play but is one that when used appropriately, renders effective results.

As referenced at the onset, I strongly advocate that each and every command level law enforcement executive attend a crisis negotiation course. This should be approached with a mindset of application to the processes with which they facilitate, manage, or negotiate every day. Some of the most important concepts instilled in every crisis negotiator are those of thinking outside the box, working toward a common objective, and ensuring that those they are attempting to serve are treated with respect and compassion. In each of these cases, we must be willing to consider the concessions we make and the results we realize throughout the process. These are certainly all leadership traits for which most law enforcement executives would like to be known.

originally published 2009

Today’s technology is often a significant challenge for many law enforcement officers. While younger officers are more adept and open to the new technologies which more experienced officers find complex and frustrating; computers, personal wireless devices and cell phones are becoming such a part of our world that many of us feel that we are being left behind. We find ourselves asking our children to access certain software on the computer or how to use a certain application on our new cell phone that the sales rep insisted “is the simplest phone ever made”. This technology provides us with a great deal of information quickly and remotely, as it keeps us in touch with our families, friends and jobs.

As a negotiator this new technology is being used to assist in accessing information about those with whom we are negotiating as well as providing digital recordings of the conversations between the person in crisis and the negotiator. Some of this technology provides real time transcription of those communications so that it can immediately be reviewed by other officers, subject matter experts and consulting mental health professionals without influence of the passion, emotion and rhetoric that accompanies the negotiation process. Many teams now include a designated technological or equipment technician who is given the specific task to set up, manage and maintain much of this equipment.

The reality is that most negotiations take place in the field where officers have called the negotiator in an attempt to interact with a person in crisis. These attempted contacts are generally accomplished by yelling through the front door or, in many cases, via the negotiators mobile phone. Both of these scenarios seriously restrict officers from using much of these technological advancements previously mentioned. The NOC, or Negotiation Operation Center, turns out to be the trunk of a patrol car, a neighbor’s garage, or even the hallway of residence where the person in crisis has barricaded inside the family room or bedroom.

One group that has easily embraced all of the latest technology is our children. They know how to hack into a secure computer network, build their own computer network, and play interactive video games live with people all over the world. Most have an MP-3 player with the earphones in their ears all of the time and their mobile phones are never far from their reach. They have the skill and ability to carry on a conversation with you at the dining room table all the while, they are texting their friends from the mobile phone they are holding underneath the table. Many kids will send and receive more than one thousand text messages a month. Others may send and receive that number in only a week or two. Their phones become lifelines to their friends and in many cases, to their sense of self. This fragile sense of self generally develops in many pubescent and teenage children and can lead to tragedy and grief for friends and family.

Imagine this scenario. You are called to a residence to negotiate with a thirteen year old girl after patrol officers responded to a disturbance related call for service. Upon your arrival you learn that the girl got into an argument with her parents over a boy, her declining school work, and her constant use of the mobile phone which she uses to text and talk to her friends as well as the boy in question. You also learn that she has locked herself inside her bedroom threatening to kill herself if her parents do not leave her alone about these issues. Her father tells you that his .38 caliber pistol which he only keeps for protection, has been removed from the box in which he keeps it in his bedroom closet. Due to the narrow confines of the hallway leading to her room along with the knowledge that she potentially has her Dad’s pistol in the room with her, you elect to communicate with her by yelling down the hallway. After little or no response, you elect to call her on the device that she uses to communicate with the outside world, her mobile phone. But again, after multiple attempts, she fails to answer your call. Suddenly, you receive a text message from her inquiring “who r u & wtf u want”. Surprised you scramble to remember how to use the keypad of your mobile phone to reply; “answer phone talk 2 me”. Her reply from her is almost instantaneous; “I am”.

The possibility of having to negotiate via text messaging is real and looming in the near future for officers everywhere. What are you going to do when that eventuality occurs? Are you prepared to confront the technological issues that our teenage children embrace? More importantly, are you able to communicate with them in a language familiar to them and they can understand?

Technology

You may face a number of technological issues such as your familiarity with your particular phone keypad as well as your ability to reply without fumbling to send or reply to messages. Standard twelve key phones use an average of three letters per key and must be depressed a specific number of times to record the specific letter or symbol. Many new phones are designed specifically to ease texting issues by providing a partial or full QRTY keyboards. Those with partial QRTY boards generally have twenty keys and an average of two letters per key. These phones usually contain a form of smart technology that will auto complete words based on the key combination used in order to generate the words. Those with full QRTY boards provide a full keyboard similar to the ones found on a computer keyboard and usually possess the same auto complete smart technology as the smaller version of phones. Depending on the phone and your familiarity with it, speed of texting and replying are affected dramatically.

Language

After dealing with the technological issues associated with this process, if we cannot understand or reply in a language that they recognize and understand, we will never gain their trust in order to build the rapport necessary to effectively resolve the crisis. During a recent interview at the Olympic Games with Michael Phelp’s mother, she revealed that she would text him during his training sessions because he was often busy and did not have time to talk on the phone. She said that she always ended her text messages with “LOL”, short for “lots of love”. While her son understood what she meant, the common understanding of those three letters means “Laughing out loud”. Many people who share personal relationships with family members and close friends, along with people who are dating, develop terms that only they may understand. While it is difficult enough to communicate with a teenager, developing trust and rapport is akin with trying to communicate with someone who does not speak the same language.

Negotiation Techniques / Active Listening Skills

The foundation of every negotiation is the use of Active Listening Skills. Most of these skills may become moot during this negotiation whereby other techniques would need to be employed.

Emotional Labeling

(Respond to the emotions that you hear rather than the words themselves.)

Assessing received text messages becomes extremely difficult when we begin applying the first component; Emotional Labeling. It has been estimated that there are over six hundred words in the English language used to describe various emotions. Unfortunately, most people generally do not express them in the written form. Generally, we are able to listen for the emotion in their voice; to look beyond words and search for the true emotions. To confirm our assessment, we may apply that specific emotion to a phrase such as, “You sound angry”, or “You seem frustrated”, or “I hear sadness”.

Have you ever received a written message, perhaps an email or letter, that you had difficulty deciphering exactly what the sender intended by simply reading the text? When you later spoke with the sender, you learned that the intended message was not at all what you inferred from their words? This same hurdle limits our assessment of the text sender’s emotions and focuses strictly on the content of their message. As stated before, many of these words are abbreviated and may have differing meanings. As the negotiation continues, the negotiator may realize great difficulty in assessing red flags, such as missing, conflicting, or inappropriate emotions.

Paraphrasing

(Demonstrates you are listening. Summarizes what you have been told in your own words.)

Paraphrasing via text messaging may be limited to only one or two word replies followed by a question mark. This can give the negotiator an opportunity to consult with their coach or to pause for a moment while waiting for a reply…hoping that it does come. Paraphrasing generally allows the negotiator to not only reply to the words, but also to the meanings that appears to be hiding behind those words. Additionally, it provides a great deal of intelligence by delving deeper into the crisis at hand without a great deal of stress and thought.

Reflecting/Mirroring

(Repeating the last word, phrase, or thought along with a question mark.)

Reflecting may be one of the best components of the A.L.S. skill set during a text negotiation. The negotiator can reply with the same concepts as with verbal negotiations. If the person in crisis states “I so scared”, the negotiator might reply “scared?” Single word replies allow for the same breaks and consultations as noted above but, remember that the person in crisis is most likely very adept at quick replies. Always be prepared to reply something back to keep them talking.

Effective Pauses

(Silence before or after an important point or a tactic used to encourage the person in crisis to say something to break the silence.)

For the negotiator who is not adept at texting, many of the replies and communications may be delayed. The effect can cause the person in crisis to think you are not replying or worse, do not care enough to respond when they do open up to you. There is again limited use of this component in negotiating via text messages.

Minimal Encouragers

(Sounds made, especially on the phone, to let the other person know that you are listening.)

At best, single text replies such as “really” and “Uh” might provide the desired impact to keep them talking. While it cannot be applied as in voice communications by interjecting the minimal encourager into the exchange, a quick reply of “oh” or “uh” can buy more time and encourage continued communication. The use of an exclamation or question mark after these responses can assist in conveying the message you wish to send.

I/We Messages

(Lets the subject know how they are making us feel. Build toward rapport by changing mindsets from you and me toward “we and us”.)

I/we messages tend to be long in delivery which will not bode well during text messaging. Until we have established a significant rapport and then move to inclusive text messages, the use of “we and us”, may go unnoticed as the person in crisis is fixated on the trigger of the present crisis. While this component is limited, do not forget to move toward it as you do gain trust and build rapport.

Open-ended Questions

(Questions that cannot be answered with a simple yes, or no. Who, what, when, where, how, but not why.)

Open ended questions again require longer responses which may result in language confusion and tedium on behalf of both parties to the negotiation. More emphasis on short text responses may be more appropriate for this negotiation.

Remember, if you are faced with this stressful situation you must be flexible in your approach to dealing with the person in crisis. Try not to let the technology overwhelm you and remember to be open to learning a new language as you are trying to use your Active Listening Skills the best you can. Overall, it is imperative that we work to encourage the person in crisis to trust us enough to use the phone for what it was originally designed to do, allow us to talk directly to them. As Tigger said many years ago, TTFN (Ta Ta for now).

Originally Published October 2007

The negotiator has been on the phone with a barricaded person in crisis for the past several hours but does not seem to be making a great deal of progress in getting him to come out. The Chief is getting impatient, the negotiator is getting tired and the team leader is trying to decide if they should change negotiators to get things moving. The person in crisis isn’t talking that much or giving the team much information with which to work. In reality, the negotiator has been doing most of the talking.

The replay of the communication between the two of them is telling. While the negotiator tells the subject that “it can’t really be that bad” and “we really want to help” while trying to encourage them to “open the door and come on out”, what the person in crisis may really be hearing is “just tell me what the problem is so that I can fix it and we can move along”.

Just the facts Ma’am, just the facts.

As the camera pans left to the nodding head of his partner Officer Bill Gannon, we are faced with the realization that Joe Friday spoke these words so often in the long-running television show Dragnet, that law enforcement officers have simply accepted this as their mantra. Like Friday and Gannon, modern police officers don’t have time for the drama and the real life events that occur daily, building up to the crises in our lives that we as negotiators are often called on to deal with.

One of the most difficult mindsets that trainers must overcome when teaching basic negotiation skills is getting experienced law enforcement officers to put aside this “just the facts” mentality to become effective negotiators. Most basic courses spend the first two days teaching at least one form of the accepted basic listening skills techniques (Active Listening, Reflective Listening, etc.) and then generally incorporating various forms of reinforcement of those skills, along with introduction to various other aspects of crisis negotiations, throughout the balance of the course.

Even with this introduction and reinforcement of the listening concepts, many officers fail to grasp these two basic principles that allow effective negotiators to gather facts, to listen efficiently and, when appropriate, use this information to engage the person more effectively.

Very few law enforcement agencies have the luxury of maintaining full-time Tactical or Negotiation teams. As a result, we are tasked with the responsibility of performing our primary jobs of Patrol Officer or Detective and then migrating to that role of Crisis Negotiator as the situation demands. In our role of traditional law enforcement officer, we are tasked with investigating criminal activity, gathering evidence, generating reports and doing so in an expeditious manner as dispatch pushes us to clear this scene because another high priority call is holding in our district. When we are asked to change hats and act in the role of Crisis Negotiator, we must to be able to set aside this pattern of expediency and revert to the listening skills that we have learned are effective in mediating and resolving these critical situations.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit. Aristotle.

One of the techniques identified to improve proficiency in firearms is through the concept of “muscle memory”. Through the multiple repetition of drawing our weapons in the same manner, pointing and aiming the same way every time, as well as consistent trigger and breath control we develop a systematic approach to ensure that during a high-stress encounter such as an officer involved shooting, we respond consistently and without hesitation.

Good negotiators use this same concept to develop a habit of incorporating active and reflective listening skills into their daily interactions with others. Similarly, practicing active and reflective listening skills in daily routines helps negotiators to seamlessly shift from daily duties in crisis negotiation roles without interruption.

In addition, using experienced negotiators as role players in various law enforcement and negotiation training scenarios provides the negotiators an avenue to reinforce their skills proficiency through application of their listening skills as well as immediate and post scenario feedback. When they recognize the limitations or proficiencies in the communication, or more importantly, the listening skills of others, it reinforces their own skill levels.

As negotiators we are constantly evaluating the messages that we are sending to the people with which we are engaged. Of all the messages we are sending, we should ensure that we send this one message loud and clear, “Joe Friday has retired. Talk to us, we really are listening”.