What are the differences between police and

ordinary negotiator?
Lok Hui Ting, Rita
th

Date: Friday, 8 May, 2015

Word Count: 2039

1|7

What are the differences between police and ordinary negotiator?

Hostage-Taking Terrorists and suicide victims are two of the major difficult clients
that police officers may encounter. Principles and strategies that they adopt may differ
from daily general negotiations. Ideas and steps for resolving these two types of
conflicts will be discussed and illustrated below.
Definition
According to The Mind And Heart Of The Negotiator1, negotiation is an interpersonal
decision-making process necessary whenever we cannot achieve our objectives singlehandedly. While with reference to (Cooper, 2005), negotiation is a process whereby a
conflict is sought to resolve through mutual understanding & compromise. To
conclude, negotiation is a process includes two parties holding different objectives
come to a bargaining table and hope to reach a consensus to solve the dispute towards
the end. For police negotiation, subjects objectives are mostly for self-interest like
money rewards, expressing political views or gaining mental comfort, while
negotiators objectives are to protect the citizens and the subject, to minimize the
effects of the crisis to the country or others parties and so on.
Compare and Contrast
Albeit strategies and principles of police negotiations may vary from general
negotiations, the three main stages of negotiation are kept constant. With reference to
A Practical Approach To Alternative Dispute Resolution2, the three stages are agenda
setting, seeking information and discussion of the merits on the issues. Simple saying,
the general flow and structure of all kinds of negotiation are alike.
The most significant difference between police negotiations and general negotiations
is the number of negotiators required. As police negotiations like negotiating with
suicide victims, hostage takers, kidnapping criminals and so on are life threatening
crisis, the negotiation process has to be as efficient and as under control as possible.
Therefore, the seeking information stage is undoubtedly essential. In light of this, a
police negotiation team consists of a minimum of three negotiators: the primary
negotiator who communicates with the subject, the secondary negotiator who keeps
the whole scene in control and the intelligence negotiator who searches for the
subjects background, history etc. While general negotiations like business negotiation
can be a one-on-one negotiation. The three main different aspects between police
negotiations and general negotiations that this paper will be focusing on are: (1) the
preparation work, (2) time management and (3) negotiators features, which will be
discussed below.

Thompson, L. L. (2012). The mind and heart of the negotiator. Boston: Pearson.
Blake, S. H., Browne, J., & Sime, S. (2014). A practical approach to alternative dispute resolution,
Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
2

2|7

Preparation Work
In light of the above, having a good planning before police negotiation is extremely
important. Define bargaining range by setting objectives should be included in the
planning. Bargaining range includes a top line which is the best achievable outcome, a
bottom line which is the lowest outcome and a target objective which is the
realistically expect to settle for. Having a precise bargaining range can prevent
negotiators go astray, get lost during negotiations and know when the negotiation
could end in a win-win situation.
Moreover, police negotiation team should acquire much information of the subject
before and during negotiation. Having a list includes what topics do the subject
interest in talking about, like the subjects pets, hobbies or talents, and sensitive topics,
like divorced spouse, political views or failures in jobs, that will stimulate subjects
emotion. Shifting of these topics in critical times during negotiation can prevent
deadlocks or failure in negotiations. For instance, for suicidal cases, when the subject
requires to see his wife within an hour. Negotiators should not make the promise as
the meeting may escalate the subjects mood and increase the risk of the subject
committing suicide right after the meeting. Therefore, negotiator needs to shift to
another interesting topic promptly according to the list to sooth the subjects emotion
and divers the attention.
Furthermore, for hostage-taking crisis, polices should limit the mass media to
broadcast their detail planning and layouts before the negotiation, so as not to
stimulate the subjects emotion. For instance, the surrounding of Special Weapons and
Tactics (SWAT) team in the scene may tense up the subject. On the other hand, for
suicidal cases, intelligence negotiators should contact all the friends and families who
are close to the subject asking them not to call or answer the subjects calls so as to get
full control of the scene, and prevent any stimuli affecting the subjects emotions.
Time Management
Keeping track of time by aware negotiators is paramount in police negotiations.
Negotiators should know when is the right time to carry out different approaches, and
should not procrastinate the negotiation and keep track of the deadlines set by the
subjects. With reference to an American politicians, Barbara Charline Jordans, speech
in United States Congress in 1975, she pointed out that time plays an essential role in
influencing the overall atmosphere and affects the ultimate outcome of a negotiation
directly. This idea can be significantly reflected in hostage crisis. According to (Miller
,2007), there are three dangerous periods in a hostage crisis, which are the first 15-45
minutes which has the greatest confusion and panic in both the public and hostages,
during the surrender of the hostage takers which hostage takers emotion is unstable,
ambivalence and police negotiators can hardly get the situation in control. Lastly, the
time of police using tactical assault to rescue hostages which has the highest casualty
rate.
One can take the well-known case, Manila Hostage Crisis in 2010, as an example. It
3|7

falls into the third dangerous period, which is when SWAT team used a sledged
hammer to break down the door of the bus, and the hostage taker started to kill. The
police did not take actions at the right time, as they did not consider the emotion of
the subject at that time. The arresting of the subjects brother had escalated the
subjects emotion already, the police then to follow closely on using tactical assault to
break in which stimulated the subjects emotion to unstable and frustrated which led
him to commit violent behaviours.
In addition, the major failure of this negotiation is the police officers have not get hold
of the golden negotiation time carefully. The negotiation has lingered for 11-hours and
resulted in high casualty rate eventually. The first eight hours of the crisis, 10 a.m. 6
p.m., the police simply had done nothing beside delivering lunch boxes, refuelling the
bus and making a promise to review on his case. The emotion of hostage taker was
calm and rational in these eight hours, which was reflected by the willingness to
release hostages time by time. However, the police did not carry out a negotiation
effectively and jumped to using SWAT team to end the case. The reason why the
police opted for quick resolution by SWAT team is police leaders are often pressured
by various factors like overtime pay, tying up police resources, community pressure,
political pressure, the mindset that they do not want to have an image that criminals
can keep police resources dedicated for a long time (McMains & Mullins, 2001).
On the other hand, the police negotiators should start a conversation with the subject
promptly every time he posted a message in the buss window, which have 4 times in
total. This is because the posting of message symbolizes the willingness to interact.
Yet, the police were not reacting or trying to open a conversation for eight hours, the
hostage-takers may escalate their actions in order to force the government or the
police to response. If the negotiators do not know how to react, they should use the
technique of Reflecting or Mirroring, which negotiators repeat the last phase or key
word of the subjects statement in the form of a question, (Miller, 2007), rather than
keeping silence. Silence and Pauses could be used to buy time and keeps subject
talking in negotiations. Yet, Manila police negotiators use it inappropriately, which
creates deadlock. Mirroring can help negotiators to buy time if they cannot think of an
immediate response and also encourage the subject to think about what he has just
said.
Moreover, for suicide or hostage taking cases, negotiators should never set deadlines.
If the Hostage Taker makes a deadline, do not bring it up if the subject has not
mentioned. The goal is to ignore the deadline and let it pass by, keeping the subject
engaged in conversation, (Miller, L., 2005). This strategy is to show to the subject that
he does not have the full control of the whole scene. The focus on time and deadlines
are not that strong in general negotiations comparatively.
Negotiators features
Moreover, being observant and an active listener is one of the major principles and
strategies as well. During the conversation, negotiators have to observe and listen
carefully to the subjects speech and interpret the underline meanings. For instance, a
4|7

man has taken his wife as hostage and asked her not to panic, as he would accompany
her to heaven soon. Particularly dangerous is a situation where the Hostage Taker
intends to commit a murder-suicide, (Hillbrand, 2001). This is because as the subject
has the idea of suicide, he has nothing to lose which limited the scope and range of
negotiation. Also, negotiator can carry out Emotion Labeling. According to
(Miller,2007), it can help the subject to clarify what hes feeling so as to reduce
internal confusion and keeps a state of calmness. Also, the subject can know that you
care and understand his feel, which favors rapport building as well.
Besides, police negotiator has to have the knowledge to distinguish whether or not the
subject has mental disorders. Different approaches should be used, like facing
Schizophrenia subjects, they have various kinds of hallucinations with a mixed
emotion of fear and anger and delusions. Negotiators should not take side with his
delusional ideas and keep the focus on present reality and strategies for a safe
resolution, (Miller, 2007). Effective and safe negotiations can only achieved when
negotiators could identify which kind of mental disorder does the subject suffer and
utilize the according approaches.
In light of the above factors, police negotiators are often expertise with experiences,
but not solely experienced negotiators. Experiences allow people to alter strategies
through a process of trial and error. Yet, police negotiations are often life crises, which
do not allow errors or failures. As expertise know which strategy is effective under
which situation. Experienced expertise would be the best choice for police
negotiations. While experienced negotiators can handle general negotiations as the
skills and techniques for understanding, observing and interpreting the subjects
personality, intention and emotions are not that demanding in general negotiation
comparatively.
On the other hand, police negotiators should be stress-resistance. As mentioned
above, the surroundings and police commanders may give time pressure. Yet, rapport
building or negotiation requires time. Therefore, negotiation team should be able stay
calm and make rational decisions under stressful situations. In order to favors this,
negotiation team should be isolated from police commanders and officers, so as to
shun the pressure and avoid police giving direct commands to interfere negotiators
decisions and steps.
Conclusion
There are more differences could be found between police negotiations and general
negotiations. However, this paper is focusing on three main aspects: preparation work,
time management and negotiators characteristics. More studies could be carried out
in the future in comparing and contrasting police negotiations and general
negotiations. A diagram below summarized the above ideas above.

5|7

Factors
Number of
negotiator
Preparation
Work

Time
Management

Negotiators
features

Police Negotiations
not less than 3

General Negotiations
Not less than 1

Plan an agenda
Define bargaining range
Acquire detail and extensive
information of subjects
Strict and extensive scene
control
Do not set deadlines, let
subjects deadline pass by in
purpose
Long negotiation time for
rapport building and acquire
information of the subject
Experienced expertise
Focus on observing and
listening to subjects
Required psychotherapeutics
knowledge
Focus on stress coping skill

Plan an agenda
Define bargaining range
Acquire general information of
subjects
Flexible or without scene control
Bargain and compromise over
issues and deadlines
Straight
Forward
and
comparatively short negotiation
time
Experienced negotiators
Focus on maximizing clients
interests and rewards
Psychotherapeutics knowledge
may not required
Stress coping skill is relatively
less important

6|7

References :
Blake, S. H., Browne, J., & Sime, S. (2014). A practical approach to alternative dispute
resolution, Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Cooper, H. H. A. (2005). Police hostage negotiations: The matrix revisited. Journal
of Police Crisis Negotiations, 5(1), 5-22.
Grubb, A. (2010). Modern day hostage (crisis) negotiation: The evolution of an art
form within the policing arena. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(5), 341-348.
Greenstone, J. L. (2007). The twenty-five most serious errors made by police hostage
and crisis negotiators. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 7(2), 107-116.
H. H. A. Cooper (2005). Police Hostage Negotiations, Journal of Police Crisis
Negotiations, 5:1, 5-22.
Hillbrand, M. (2001). Homicide-suicide and other forms of co- occurring aggression
against self and against others. Pro- fessional Psychology: Research and Practice,
32, 626- 635.
Kim, Y. (2008). Negotiating with terrorists: The iterated game of the Taliban Korean
hostage case. Public Relations Review, 34(3), 263-268.
Magers, J. S. (2007). Crisis negotiation leadership: Making ethical decisions. Journal of
Police Crisis Negotiations, 7(1), 5-25.
McClelland, L., Reicher, S., & Booth, N. (2000). A last defence: the negotiation of
blame within suicide notes. Journal of community & applied social psychology,
10(3), 225-240.
McMains, M. J. & Mullins, W. C. (2001). Crisis Negotiations: Managing Critical Incidents and Hostage Situations in Law Enforcement and Corrections. Cincinnati,
OH: Anderson Publishing.
Miller, L. (2005). Hostage negotiation: Psychological principles and practices.
International journal of emergency mental health, 7(4), 277.
Miller, L. (2007). Negotiating with mentally disordered hostage takers: Guiding
principles and practical strategies. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 7(1), 6383.
Thompson, L. L. (2012). The mind and heart of the negotiator. Boston: Pearson.
Welsh, N. A. (2003). Perceptions of fairness in negotiation. Marq. L. Rev., 87, 753.

7|7