Leadership of Thought

Posted on

Patrol Officers Guide to Crisis Negotiating

Originally published 2011

Every day throughout the world, law enforcement officers respond to untold numbers of calls for service. These calls have the potential to become a barricade or crisis situation. For the past 20 years or so, we have attempted to provide first responding officers with information and tools to initiate negotiations in an effort to quickly resolve the crisis or to maintain the situation until specially trained negotiators arrive. In fact, it has become more or less an accepted practice to provide an abbreviated, 40-hour basic crisis negotiation class in a four-hour block of instruction titled “Negotiations for First Responders.” In doing so, we have violated one of the first rules of training by setting the stage for our students to fail. It is certainly unreasonable to believe that students will comprehend and/or retain any of the tools, skills or techniques force-fed to them as we sweep through the basic negotiation course at ten times the intended speed.

Active listening skills alone are difficult for many officers to comprehend and are generally best accomplished through individual participation with immediate feedback from instructors and peers. When accomplished, they are certainly a perishable skill if not regularly used, practiced, and critiqued by others. Students who are overwhelmed with the material and fail to comprehend how it directly benefits them will simply dismiss that information as useless and a waste of time. With these issues in mind, it is time that we begin to change our paradigm in what we want these first line officers to do when they arrive at the crisis site. Furthermore, we need to identify the necessary tools for them to accomplish this vision. Like other tools and skills we provide our officers, negotiation skills must be presented in a manner that encourages the student to apply their own personal strengths and experiences to achieve success in skill attainment. At the same time, we must bolster their confidence in the knowledge that negotiation is simply an extension of those communication skills they employ daily.

Whether it begins as a known barricaded and armed person threatening suicide, a door slammed closed as officers approach a domestic disturbance, or the tactical team finding themselves facing an unplanned barricade after making an initial entry, the initial reaction is generally the same: “Oh crap, what should we do now?” Crisis negotiations conducted by first responders, tactical operators, or seasoned negotiators will, no matter how abbreviated or extended, consist of three primary components or phases: the initial response or introduction phase, the mitigation or bargaining phase, and the resolution or surrender phase. There is no predetermined length of time appropriate for any of these phases. They are as independent and unique as each crisis situation encountered.

Historically, we have trained first responders to either hold their ground (physically contain the area and wait for the negotiation team) or attempt to initiate contact and work toward a successful resolution. I advocate for the latter; we should begin to initiate contact as soon as possible in an effort to begin the very important task of verbal containment of the person in crisis. Verbal containment encompasses the components of assessing the person’s emotional state, initiating the rapport building necessary to continue the process, and intelligence gathering.

Verbal Containment

While it may be tempting to stall initiating contact until more intelligence is gathered, the earlier contact is established, the greater amount of intelligence can be gathered. Intelligence generally falls into the categories of ‘Who’, ‘What’, ‘When’, ‘Where’ and ‘How’ but not ‘Why’. ‘Why’ will usually be learned as the communication continues and is often considered as a challenge to the behavior. Learning who is involved and if anyone is injured or needs specialized assistance; what types of weapons they may have or threats they are making; when the crisis began; where the person in crisis is located as well as if other are involved; where they are being held; and, finally, how did it get to this particular crisis level are basic intelligence gathering areas to consider. After ensuring the officers personal safety (tactical soundness), one of the most important things to remember is that you are dealing with a person in crisis, an emotionally disturbed person. While they may not be an EDP as we might traditionally think of one, we nevertheless must treat them as we might a traditional EDP. They will be varied in their responses, or lack thereof. In addition, they are going to be unrealistic in their thought patterns and may have great difficulty communicating clear thoughts or making clear sense of what they are communicating. People deal with crisis in their own way, and throughout their lives they have adapted to the stresses and emotional changes to maintain a semi-even personality. As stressors and strong emotional occurrences impact us, we find ourselves feeling overwhelmed. These radical emotional shifts to extremes often control the person in crisis. Like a child’s teeter-totter, when emotions rise, logical thought declines. As emotions start to decline, logical thought rises to a more balanced level. Unlike a teeter-totter, the side that is in the air has more control over balance than the side low to the ground. This illustrates that when emotions are high, the chances of illogical or irrational behavior become more likely. As balance and control return, logical thought patterns return and greater progress is generally accomplished.

When initial contact is made with the person in crisis, the officer should introduce him or herself, along with their association with law enforcement. It is certainly not a secret that they are a police officer, and they are setting a stage of honesty in their communications. As previously mentioned, everyone involved (including the officer) will be emotionally charged. The first responder should have someone with them, not to act as a coach that a primary negotiator might utilize but as a support mechanism to help reduce some of the emotionality they are feeling and to ensure tactical safety measures are employed. If the officer presents a sense of calm and control, it may help the person in crisis to lower their emotional state in like fashion. Despite the sense of calm displayed by the negotiator, the person in crisis may be unable to maintain any sense of control over their emotions and may express extreme outbursts, making radical threats and attempting to challenge the negotiator to verbal combat. The negotiator should remain calm, non confrontational, and certainly not accept the invitation to the argument.

Bargaining or Mitigation Phase

In this phase, a certain degree of rapport and trust has been formed between the negotiator and the person in crisis. This phase can be boiled down to two things: you want them to come out and they want you to go away. Both of you know that the latter option is most likely never going to happen, so you must work with the person in crisis to minimize the perceived negative implications of them “coming out”. Again, honesty in telling them that we cannot just leave helps to reinforce the reality of what they know but do not want to admit. Without getting ahead of ourselves and moving straight to the third phase, resolution or surrender, we must consider that the second phase begins the process of creating many of the face-saving aspects of the third phase. As the negotiation continues, we should remember that the person with whom we are negotiating is probably a “normal” person suffering from an intense, emotionally charged crisis state.

In a recent Law and Order Magazine article published in June 2010, “Emergency Responses and the Mentally Ill,” author Kelly Sharp notes, “According to the National Institute of Mental Health, 26.2 percent of Americans age 18 and older have some kind of mental disorder in any given year, with 6 percent suffering from a serious mental illness… For officers, this means that one in 17 people they contact may be mentally ill”. I recommend this article for any law enforcement officer, especially crisis negotiators. Whether mentally ill or emotionally overwhelmed, at no time should the person with whom we are negotiating be treated as “crazy,” “less than intelligent,” disrespected, or their issues minimized. In agreement with Ms. Sharp, I too believe that it is unfair to ask officers to become “sidewalk psychologists;” conversely, I believe that most law enforcement officers can learn the skills necessary to communicate with and develop rapport with most EDP’s or mentally ill people through compassion and a willingness to accept others for who they are.

Seldom are first responders concerned with areas in which to stay clear, such as “word bullets,” or using specific terms to minimize the importance of certain things, such as not referring to persons held against their will as “hostages,” or discussing power and control issues that a trained negotiator might employ. Additionally, seldom will first responders be confronted with any substantive demands other than, “Go away and leave me alone.” As previously mentioned, it is important not to dismiss a demand; it is imperative that they are acknowledged. First responders should calmly but confidently reassure the person in crisis that they are not going to be able to just leave, but rather they want to help ensure that everyone involved in the situation is well. As rapport is built and emotionality is reduced to a more manageable level, officers should begin to prepare for transition to the final phase, resolution or surrender.

Resolution or Surrender Phase

Generally, I have advocated for simplicity in communication skills for first responders, leaving the complex, psychological “game-play” for experienced crisis negotiators. However, as we enter the third phase of the process, some admonishments must be applied. As the rapport develops between parties and a resolution is considered, the concepts of face saving must be considered by the officers. All of the progress and rapport developed to that point can be lost by saying something along the lines of; “Why don’t you go ahead and give up,” or encouraging them to “go ahead and surrender.” The psychological impact that this can have is devastating to the person’s already fragile self-esteem. Using verbiage such as “when you come out,” or “Will you come out and meet me?” removes the stigma that the person is again a failure, or they are giving up instead of assuming some control and participating in the process.

The process by which you want them to come out should be planned as early in the process as possible, in anticipation of the person suddenly coming out without any warning. Be mindful that this is the second most highly emotionally charged time during the negotiation. The person may change their mind several times before acquiescing to your requests for them to “come out.” When they do emerge from their barricaded location, he or she may be looking for a reason to vilify you as the source of their problems. By continuing to maintain honesty and adhering to any agreements or promises to ensure their safety, you will mitigate their vilification and continue to build rapport in the possible event you are faced with negotiating with this person again. More importantly, you will comply with rule # 1: going home safely at the end of your shift, with a sense of accomplishment and self respect for surviving a difficult task and making a difference in the lives of those we swore to protect.

Important points to remember:

  1. Verbal containment vs. physical containment.
  2. Tactical safety.
  3. Heightened emotionality affecting all parties; officer and person in crisis alike.
  4. Whether they are emotionally distraught or mentally ill, treat them with respect and remember they are not stupid, just overwhelmed.
  5. Prepare a “Surrender Plan” as early as possible but try not to use the term “surrender,” help them save face when possible.
Posted on

Police Executives as Negotiators?

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.

Posted on

Negotiating Through Text Messaging

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).

Posted on

Sergeant Joe Friday would have sure been proud.

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”.