Question Box 9: Lightning Round- Personal Space, Emotional Contagion, Saying No, Secret Weapons, A Good Opener & How I Almost Didn't Follow My Dream

Prairie thunderstorms are majestic and terrible to behold. I can remember watching them approach as a young baseball player in the dog day summers of southcentral Kansas. The thunderhead would build-up to outer space (it seemed!), the squall line would spread its wings across the entire shimmering horizon, and then the sky would turn ominously dark. Sometimes it would have a tinge of green- hail! The ominous supercell would advance slowly at first and then faster before the game would be suspended as we ran for cover.

That's how I felt when I opened Ye Olde Questione Boxe this time around! Many thanks to the questioners, the early answers from so many other practitioners, and to you, fair reader. I hope you find what you seek...

Here we go, in no particular order!

Q: Matt Wright (he.him.his) leads off with a hypothetical, "Communication is completely shut down at the request of the other party, who has made it clear that conversation will not resume until such time as they decide to initiate - in their time, on their terms. There is a lot you would like to say - perhaps a mea culpa, a reassurance, and an offered opening. The hardest thing is to say nothing and yet it's clear that respect for boundaries is paramount. What is an effective way to flip the urge to interject, to solve, and use that energy to fuel patience and faith that the right communication will happen at the right time? How in these moments (and/or extended periods) can we recognize the power of silence and defang our false sense of urgency? I can only imagine the life or death version of this - where there may be real urgency - is magnified a hundredfold."

I have one "check down" I perform in a case like this. It is a single point of analysis I conduct quickly in my head before I decide what to do or say. Here it is: "Does this person have the right to their personal boundaries right now?" That might seem strange in the era of #metoo and the paramount nature of personal sovereignty. In my world, strange ethical situations can arise. If you take hostages, you don't get to spend all day in your Zen cave. If you are holding a deal hostage with other peoples' livelihoods in the balance, then you are obliged to hash this sucker out. If you are having a personal trauma or grieving, or we are having a personal disagreement, then yes, space is in order.

In most cases, a good listener, negotiator, or leader should possess the ability to give an appropriate remark and then let silence do its work. That might be condolences and a promise to listen to them when they wish to speak, and/or asking politely if you can sit with them or they would prefer time alone. The life or death situation often means we cannot disengage, and get creative in keeping the dialogue alive. What I try to do is use the demand for space/time away from the negotiation into an entirely new and separate negotiation. I explore the interest and position related to the desire to end the conversation and not reinitiate.

One benefit of an extremely exigent situation is the use of "parallel" resolution. If they refuse to talk, the SWAT guys may lob in some tear gas or "remodel" the front living room with the armored car's extended ram. This usually kickstarts the conversation! While police negotiators must resolve intense crises, our resources intensify to resolve it!

Q: Romina Muhametaj is up, batting second, "How does it feel to have the power of deciding on [the fate of] a human life during a hostage negotiation? Does it feel like a privilege or a huge responsibility?"

If only that was the case! Our job as police negotiators would be easy. We would decide, "life!", and then it would be Miller Time! The challenge of my chosen craft is that we don't get to be in control. Our subject(s) decide the fate of the incident and any people trapped inside this wicked web. Our job is both simpler in a moral sense and much more complex in a technical sense. Morally, we are obliged to do our best and come prepared. We manage our own emotions and the dynamics of the situation without controlling the other party. We are not obliged to make everyone choose what is best. 'Cause we can't. It is both a privilege and a huge responsibility to prepare for our negotiations, to stick to our training and rehearsal with so much on the line, and to help everyone come out safely- even the perpetrator. We learn fairly quickly that we only have the power of persuasion, which is not what most people would imagine when you say "power". It is selfless and subtle when done properly.

Q: Sune Nightingale my cross-pond cousin asks for a practical guide to managing stress during tough conversations when he writes, "We're wired for empathy and as we communicate emotional states are emulated/mirrored in each other. When I have been in situations of heightened emotional communication (usually types labeled negative!) I may feel adrenaline kick in. To discard that I sometimes deliberately shake it off physically which works really well, for me anyway. Hard to do if you're in front of someone, so in that case I may try a stretch, move my shoulders that sort of thing. Not quite as good as a shake, but its something. Dan - when you're in a similar situation are you more accustomed to it so this doesn't happen so much? ie are you able to maintain neutrality, to detach better with practise? I guess you'd have seen this reduce over time with experience if that's the case? Which would be a decoupling of an adrenal response from the empathy/mirroring which is surely quite vital to your work? When/if it does happen do you use any technique to discard adrenaline? If you do then what do you do when you're observed - is there a sneaky way you've found to do it that doesn't make you look weird?"

Brad Young adds complexity to Sune's issue of empathetic understanding. "Here’s a counter-question regarding empathy. Do I need to suffer with you to make a connection? The answer is obviously no because if I take on an emotive state then my own logic and reasoning are lessened. If you are becoming reactionary in a conversation you need to figure out why."

Sune rejoins, "I'd currently answer No to 'Do I need to suffer with you to make a connection?' I also agree it's not always useful. At the same time if I wanted to make that an emotionally empathetic connection I'd currently answer 'Yes, at least a little bit' Are you perhaps saying that with practise I'd turn the emotional dial down a bit when needed? I can do that to some extent already. I could practise what I term "decoupling" a bit more, though there's probably a proper name for it. I bet I can get better at that."

Two parts here: the issue of "feeling" empathy and then practical strategies for managing emotional contagion.

1) Feeling feelings is often a definition of empathy. It's not what I believe empathy should be in negotiations or actually anything worthwhile. It IS one way we might connect with others. I think shared emotion is essentially worthless from a de-escalation, persuasion, and influencer role. The image I often have is that of Lassie and Timmy. If Lassie finds Timmy in the well, what good is it for her to jump down there with him? To help someone self-rescue from an intense and debilitating emotional crisis, the role I adopt is to remain in a position of safety and talk them through this.

I advocate for tactical empathy. Empathy is super effective for me when it is an exploration of how people are feeling, why they are feeling this way, and what their perspective is on the need to change and the best method to do so. It is more cognitive in that regard. I demonstrate that I understand the magnitude of the emotional cocktail and its precise composition and ensure my tone of voice matches this understanding. This limits the contagion of the problematic emotions, makes an emotional connection, and offers options for changing the emotional/rational dynamic for the incident.

2) Resisting emotional contagion does get easier with practice, healthy strategies, and a team approach. The A#1 best method for an immediate prophylactic against emotional contagion is explained masterfully by two fellow contributors:

Brad Young drops some knowledge- "If you can’t help it, I find that deep breaths through my nose and out my mouth coupled with effective pauses are excellent ways to manage the adrenaline surge."

Ania Grimone adds, "I find that the breathing through the nose with extended exhalation and /or holding [your] breath for a few seconds before exhaling helps to bring the adrenaline down. Increasing carbon dioxide in the blood this way lowers body temperature, blood pressure and down-regulates the sympathetic nervous system response."

I would only add that anyone regular venturing into tough conversations and exploring other peoples' traumas and emotions should respect that even when we resist the effect of the emotions on the conversation, these experiences are cumulative. We should be double debriefing and seeking professional help before it is needed as a powerful preventative aid.

Q: Katie Bair "Listening coaches... How do you help listening novices learn to identify which message is real- when the non-verbal communication contradicts the words that are being said?"

A: Allan Tsang When there seems to be incongruence, err on the [side of the] negative and then ask more questions around that to validate/clarify/verify. The key I found here is to give it enough time for it to play out. 

Tim Link MA, MCC "Listen for emotional cues and explore them. Trained and credentialed leadership or executive coaches can teach this skill."

Not much to add here. For a super deep dive, check out Kwame Christian Esq., M.A. and my discussion of a 3 part system to handle deception in negotiations. Excellent content! NEGOTIATE ANYTHING: HOW TO HANDLE DECEPTION

Maintain emotional control, ask tons of questions, and know that people more easily fool us with their words, NOT their non-verbal or para-verbal communications. The body is much harder to control when we lie. To reinforce Tim's point, coaching for these sorts of intense and potentially rewarding opportunities is a huge part of a comprehensive solution. Not every coach is capable of coaching listening. If all they have is knowledge, run away! A pithy set of "rules" or "best practices" is dangerous without a robust arsenal of practical isolation exercises and scenario-based training, and a deep understanding of how diverse and complex these interactions can be.

Q: Scott Savage, "What industry negotiation tactics do you view as your “secret weapon”, the one you pull out when you really need it, and are you willing to use it in your loved ones?"

A: The eight active listening techniques are my bread-and-butter, and they are universally valid. I use them at home all the time. Within the more complex and riskier pantheon of negotiation tactics, there are a few I would not use outside of a police crisis situation where a serious crime is being committed. These typically involve parallel resolution and uses of force. Otherwise, not too many secrets to our craft and the methods we use work best when they serve the other person's good. Since I kinda weaseled on his question (I did NOT say "It depends"!), here's one technique that is super powerful, is direct and can seem aggressive, yet it can be devastating to someone who is on the fence during a sales pitch. "Are you giving up on the potential value in is deal?" It is a rare use of a closed-ended question, this harnesses the power of "sunk cost" and the prohibition we have of being seen as quitters. I've used it to jumpstart stalled negotiations. And yes, I use it at home!

Q: Shawn Skaggs "This may be a rookie question but I could use the help here: When negotiating with someone in a highly emotional state who can’t see their way out of the bad position they’ve put themself in due to fixed mindset issues and limiting beliefs, how do you bring them back to a state where they can think logically and process new ideas?"

A: Monique Rollin "Take a look at the escalation cycle and realize that your job as a negotiator is not to fix a bad situation or change their life situation.. it is to de-escalate that person to a place where they can start problem-solving for themselves… even briefly to come to a peaceful resolution at that moment. Understanding the neurobiology of crisis and trauma will give you the patience and the understanding to help move them to a place where they can alter their behaviour enough to get them to a state of change at the moment but not the situation in their life." Thomas Hoover chimes in, "YES! So often it is not the situation, but something else (usually pride for me) driving those bad choices. When we can get to a place that we see that for ourselves & start course correcting, that is when the true change happens."

Well, dang. I agree. Nothing to add! Well done Monique and Thomas! Be realistic in what you can accomplish and don't try to accelerate the situation when that will spike the emotions. Model calmness, label emotions, ask good questions, and let chemistry and physiology do their jobs.

Q: Nancy Carroll (she/her/hers), "When do you reach the point at which saying “No” becomes inevitable? (I’m guessing that’s before the helicopter request.)"

A: Jack Cambria, takes the first swing and it's essentially an upper-deck home run! "It’s true Nancy that sometimes we must say no! And it’s also true that the word no, when said to a subject, can stop communication right in its tracks. After-all, no eliminates all options! What I have found that had worked for me over the years when saying no, was to give a polite explanation as to why I was saying no. 'No Sir, I’m afraid that I cannot bring your wife to the scene while you still have that gun.' Thanks Dan!"

I love this. Jack is THE AUTHORITY here. I would just reiterate- we avoid saying no during the venting and dialogue phase. We deflect, delay, deter, and ask lots of questions. That sets up the powerful NO in the late stages (surrender phase). It can be shocking when the trusted advisor says, "Nancy, I'm sorry. No, we can't do that."

Q: Olivia P. Walker, MPA, "How do you begin to engage with a hostage, or hostile person (re: do you have an opening go-to sentence) Dan Oblinger?"

A: Colin Harper, "In my experience relying on a generic opening or ‘go to’ phrase it not beneficial. Taking a little to think about what information is known about the individual and what inferences you can make about them ie values, beliefs etc ensures that you can tailor your opening engagement specifically to that individual.

Colin has it! Scripts are sure ways to be inauthentic and artificial. Right off the bat, I let them know my name, why I'm here, and what I would like to accomplish in very general terms. I avoid titles, authority, and manipulation. I signal that this is a dialogue and that my role is that of a listener. Something like, "Hi, I'm Dan and I work with the police. I'm calling you to see how you are doing, and to listen to you." Like Colin said- tailored to the person and predicament.

For the same reason, I've learned to have an unusual greeting, response, or first line of a prepared remark. Don't script it! Just be unique, be yourself, be on brand, and be memorable. People will want to do business with you! e.g.: How are you? "BLESSED!"

Q: Jerrod Hardy closes out the Q-box with his request for a story. "My question is this: What was the closest you came to quitting on your dream and walking away? Followed up by why did you decide to stay the course?"

A: Twice I strayed from law enforcement as a career before it even started. Once to pursue a potential vocation as a Catholic priest. That "detour" prepared me better than any academy training or Criminal Justice college course. Studying myself, my faults, and ancient wisdom made me a better street cop, supervisor, and negotiator. God called me back into law enforcement and marriage. The second time was after 9/11. I was galvanized by watching the towers fall. I tried to enlist in the full-time US Army as a 31-Bravo. I was a semester short of my degree, a month shy of meeting my future wife, and would have undoubtedly been taking a trip to the sandbox for a few years. Fortunately, God intervened again, and my enlistment was deferred for medical records. While I was waiting, I realized my dream was to be a police officer and that was how I was supposed to serve our nation. I withdrew from MEPS, put my PD application in October 2001, and met my amazing wife that same month. I still wonder what would have been had my medical records been up-to-date. Wild. Great question, dude.

That's all folks! Connect with me on LinkedIn, and make sure you LIKE/SHARE this Q-Box so you can spread our little listening tribe! The next Box o' Questions is coming, and it will be huge. Number 10. The X. I can barely contain my excitement!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan Oblinger is just some guy from the tallgrass prairie of middle America. He has some things to say about listening, negotiating, leadership, and powerful cultures that promote all three! He's a husband and father by vocation, a hostage negotiator by job title, and has chosen the avocation of international keynote speaker, author of note, corporate trainer, and coach for listening and negotiating skills. Check out his company, Leadercraft, at its website, www.masterlistener.com. His books, "Life or Death Listening" and "The 28 Laws of Listening" are available at Amazon as paperbacks and ebooks. Connect to him on LinkedIn for daily reminders to listen well, negotiate hard, and lead with humility. Hey, it's free and can't hurt!