Cultural Differences Make Negotiations Different: Intercultural Hostage Negotiat

Question

Cultural Differences

Make Negotiations Different:

Intercultural Hostage Negotiations

Barbara Maria Ostermann

ABSTRACT. A review of case studies of the year 2000 of the negotiation

team of Muenster revealed that the negotiators had to deal with foreigners

in 32.7% of all crisis incidents. Thus, negotiations were affected by

interethnic issues. The following article describes how crisis communication

changes between cultures. Case studies and examples for each guideline

of intercultural negotiations are included. [Article copies available for a fee

from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:

Website: © 2002 by The

Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Crisis negotiation, intercultural communication, strategy,

training

In Germany, police negotiators are challenged more and more by foreign

perpetrators. This is because Germany is a growing immigration

country. About 9% of all inhabitants come from abroad: from other European

countries, Africa, Asia or South America. As criminality is a phenomenon

more likely to happen among poor people and since migrants are

usually poorer than others, these migrants are more likely to be involved

in police negotiations. Further, demographic analysis and projections

point to the probability that interethnic hostage incidents may

Barbara Maria Ostermann is a Police Psychologist, Schloss Luentenbeck, 42327

Wuppertal, Germany (E-mail: b.m.ostermann@wtal.de).

Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, Vol. 2(2) 2002

http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/product.asp?sku=J173

2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 11

JOURNAL OF POLICE CRISIS NEGOTIATIONS

increase. Fifty percent of all babies born in the ’90s in Germany have a different

ethnic background than German.

Similar demographic developments are expected for the United States.

Projections suggest that in this new century in California, Blacks, Hispanics

and Asians will outnumber Whites (Copeland and Griggs Productions,

1975; Hammer, Mitchell & Weaver).

On the other hand, the percentage of foreigners in the police force in

Northrhine-Westfalia does not correspond with the number of immigrants

in the population. Of 44,000 police officers, there are less than 0.2% police

officers with a migration background. About 2,600 police officers

work in the police department of Duesseldorf, 4 of whom are from abroad.

This very low percentage of immigrants in the German police force is due

to a law (Beamtengesetz) which was changed only two years ago. In any

case, if there is a perpetrator from another ethnic group, he is very likely to

communicate with a German. This means that police negotiations are

likely to be affected by cross cultural/interethnic issues. Cross cultural

communication differs from communication among people of the same

ethnicity. Hammer et al. pointed out that the cross-cultural dynamic changes hostage

negotiations in three regards:

• Ventilation, Language and Cross-Cultural Negotiation. One guideline

suggests that the role of the negotiator should be to reduce tension

by letting the hostage taker “ventilate.” But how and when

people vent their feelings varies with culture (e.g., in a Hispanic culture

emotionality does not communicate irrationality as in the Anglo-

American Culture, but sincerity, and emotional outbursts do not

necessarily mean that one is close to being “out of control”).

• Containment and Cross-Cultural Negotiation. A further guideline

typically followed is to contain the hostage-taking situation. This is

done to prevent escape or in order to prevent injury to bystanders. In

international hostage situations containment is a reactive, protective

and somewhat passive tactic. But within the hostage taking literature,

there seems to be a sense that containment means maintaining a

“pressure cooker” atmosphere. Such containment can be perceived

as encirclement, and as a hostile act that might provoke aggression,

especially to people from other cultures. Different territorial distances

are preferred.

• Face-to-Face Interaction, Third Parties and Cross-Cultural Negotiation.

Another guideline is to avoid face-to-face negotiations and not

to employ third parties in the negotiation process. Many non-West-

Barbara Maria Ostermann

ern people tend to rely more on nonverbal behavior and less on verbal

interaction compared to Anglo-Americans (Hall et al., 1976).

Therefore, in some cases, face-to-face negotiations may be helpful.

Furthermore, the use of third parties may not be a strong practice

among western negotiators, but certainly is for a more collectivistic

culture.

Adifferent systematic look at cross-cultural communication was developed

by Hofstede. Hofstede believes that all cultures deal with the same

basic problems, but the responses to the problems differ from one culture

to another. Culture is defined as the shared assumptions, values, and beliefs

of a group of people, which result in characteristic behaviors.

Hofstede says that all human beings have a human nature which is universal

and inherited. The act of eating is universal, as are the use of language,

seeking shelter, raising children. Those acts may vary due to social customs,

but, basically, they are common in all cultures. At the opposite end

of the behavioral continuum from the universal is the personal. While

shared assumptions, values and beliefs guarantee that people from the

same culture will be similar in many ways, personal experience guarantees

that no two people from the same culture will be identical.

To draw a picture, we can draw it like this:

This author would like to introduce four fundamental dimensions, or

building blocks of culture, which correspond to four broad categories of

human experience. The values and beliefs associated with these four dimensions

are the source of, and explanation for, a wide variety of behavior.

To understand these concepts, in particular the different ways they

manifest themselves in different cultures, is to take a giant step along the

road to cultural awareness and sensitivity (Storti, 1999).

JOURNAL OF POLICE CRISIS NEGOTIATIONS

Four building blocks of culture:

Concept of self

Individualist -------------------------------------------Collectivist

Personal versus societal responsibility

Universalist-------------------------------------------- Particularist

Concept of time

Monochronic-------------------------------------------- Polychronic

Focal point of control

Internal--------------------------------------------------- External

BLOCK 1: CONCEPT OF SELF–INDIVIDUALIST

AND COLLECTIVIST

People in different cultures have different notions of personal identity that

span a wide range of alternatives, from collectivism at one extreme to individualism

at the other. The two poles of this building block are defined as:

Individualist: The smallest unit of survival is the individual. People

identify primarily with self, and the needs of the individual are satisfied

before those of the group. Looking after and taking care of oneself, being

self-sufficient, guarantees the well-being of the group. Independence and

self-reliance are stressed and greatly valued, and personal freedom is

highly desired. In general, there is more psychological and emotional distance

from others. One may choose to join groups, but group membership

is not essential to one’s identity or survival.

Collectivist: The primary group, usually the immediate family, is the

smallest unit of survival. One’s identity is in large part a function of one’s

membership and role in the group (e.g., the family, the work team). The

survival and success of the group ensures the well-being of the individual,

so that by considering the needs and feelings of others, one protects oneself.

Harmony and the interdependence of group members are stressed

and valued. There is relatively little psychological or emotional distance

between group members, though there is more distance between group and

nongroup members (in-groups and out-groups).

Negotiation Guidelines and Case Studies

1. Hooks and the Line of Reasoning Are Likely to Be Different:

Case study: A 21-year-old Turkish female police officer attempted suicide

because of her bad marriage. She had been promised to an unknown

Barbara Maria Ostermann

man when she was 12 years old. They were married 3 years but they never

got along very well. She met another man some time ago and she wanted

to stay with him.The woman did not want to offend her father, but he had

already complained that his daughter was killing him because she did not

follow the traditions. The Turkish police officer thought that she would be

expelled from the family when she separated from her husband. Her father

demanded that she give up her job and become pregnant. He also wanted

her to wear a veil. Being a police officer had always been one of her life

goals.

Interpretation: In the classical western world, one would think that this

woman has to become more independent from her father. Nevertheless, a

collectivist cannot leave her in-group that easily. She would never feel at

“home” again if she left her original family. It was hard to find a hook in

this case because her line of reasoning was very different from our thinking.

Finally, one negotiator who has a Mediterranean background suggested

that many Italian women have lovers even though they are married.

We asked her if this was a “tradition” even in the Turkish culture. She

laughed at this suggestion and said that her aunt had actually done this. With

this hook, she gave up attempting suicide.

2. Loss of Face Is a More Crucial Topic to a Collectivist:

In any hostage situation, loss of face is a crucial topic. Talking to a collectivist,

it becomes even more crucial. On the other hand, because of the

importance of families, one can even put slight moral pressure on subjects

(e.g., in negotiations, one can say, “what would your mother say if she

knew that you haven’t paid back the money yet” or “your mother would be

very proud if you come out now”).

3. Giving and Taking:

In any hostage negotiation, any act of giving is supposed to be rewarded

by giving something back. It is a kind of social contract that people usually

fulfill. In strongly individualistic cultures, we do not find such a social

contract. Giving and taking are not linked to each other. From an extreme

individualist, a generous gesture, like providing a pizza, will not necessarily

be rewarded because there is no social obligation of giving in return.

4. Direct and Indirect Language:

Communication with collectivists should include more allusions and

hints, and may not be as direct as our language.

JOURNAL OF POLICE CRISIS NEGOTIATIONS

BLOCK 2: PERSONAL VERSUS SOCIETAL RESPONSIBILITY

People in all cultures struggle with how to balance personal responsibility

to family, close friends, and colleagues (your in-group), on one

hand, and responsibility to society in general (composed of out-groups),

on the other. In cases where these responsibilities conflict, people of different

cultures often find themselves on opposing sides of this dichotomy.

The two poles, universalism/particularism, are defined below:

Universalism: There are certain absolutes that apply across the

board, regardless of circumstances or the particular situation. What is

right is always right. Wherever possible, one should try to apply the

same rules to everyone alike and not make exceptions for family,

friends, or members of your in-group. In general, in-group/out- group

distinctions are minimized. Where possible, one should lay personal

feelings aside and look at situations objectively. While life isn’t necessarily

fair, one can make it fairer by treating everyone the same.

Particularism: How one behaves in a given situation depends on the

circumstances. What is right in one situation may not be right in another.

One treats family, friends, and in-groups the best one can, and lets the rest

of the world take care of itself. Their in-groups will protect them. One’s

in-groups and out-groups are clearly distinguished. There will always be

exceptions made for certain people. To be fair is to treat everyone as

unique. In any case, no one expects life to be fair. Personal feelings should

not be laid aside but rather relied upon. It is important to remember that all

cultures will have elements of both, but cultures do tend to be more one

than the other.

Negotiation Guidelines and Case Studies

Personal versus Societal Responsibilities

1. Reasoning with “Law” or “Rules” Will Not Be Successful:

In the world of a particularist, reasoning with “law” or “rules” does not

make sense and will not be successful. Rather, he or she will be more open

to reasoning with “in this exceptional case/situation.” It will make her or

him understand that she or he is treated exceptionally and he or she deserves

such a special treatment. It will flatter him or her.

2. Oaths and Promises May Not Be Obligations to Follow, but Friendships

May Oblige:

Barbara Maria Ostermann

In the world of Universalists, oaths or promises are important and become

obligations. For a particularist, rules, social obligations or promises

do not mean anything unless they are linked to a relationship. Therefore,

for example, in negotiations with a particularist, surrender concepts

should not build on promises or rules, but rather on relationships . Do not

say, “the surrender follows a certain rule, the Swat people want to see your

hands. Please put your hands up,” but say instead, “you have to do me a favor

now. Just do it for me. Please do put your hands up when you come

out.” Therefore, building rapport and relying heavily on it becomes even

more important when talking with a particularist.

BLOCK 3: CONCEPT OF TIME

Monochronic: Time is a commodity. It is quantifiable and there is a limited

amount of it. Therefore, it is necessary to use time wisely and not waste it.

There is a premium on efficiency, hence a sense of urgency in many matters.

Time is the given and people are the variables. The needs of people are adjusted

to suit the demands of time, such as schedules, deadlines, etc. It is considered

most efficient to do one thing at a time or wait on one person at a time.

As far as possible, you should not let circumstances, or unforeseen events, interfere

with your plans. Interruptions are a nuisance.

Polychronic: Time is limitless and not quantifiable. There is always

more time, and people are never too busy. Time is the servant and tool of

people and is adjusted to suit the needs of people. Schedules and deadlines

often get changed. People may have to do several things simultaneously,

as required by circumstances. It is not necessary to finish your business

with one person before starting in with another. One always has to take

circumstances into account and make adjustments. Strictly speaking,

there’s no such thing as an interruption.

Negotiation Guidelines and Case Studies

Concept of Time

1. Deadlines Become Less Important to a Polychronic Person:

Sometimes deadlines in the monochronic culture are very important.

Many western negotiators employ tricks to overtalk them or to let them

pass by. To a polychronic person, a certain time is not more important than

another one, as time serves them and they are not slaves of time. It, there

JOURNAL OF POLICE CRISIS NEGOTIATIONS

fore, is of no use to ask for a surrender at a certain time. Time, in general, is

not a good negotiating point for a polychronic person. Therefore, do not

say, “We are ready in five minutes for you coming out,” but say instead “I

have gotten a good feeling about you by now. I would like to see you over

here. Don’t you feel the same way?”

2. Different Communication Styles: Bargaining One by One Becomes

More Difficult:

To a polychronic person, it may be necessary to negotiate on different

topics all at once. There is a proverb that says that western people have

their thoughts like jewels on a necklace, one after another. Instead,

polychronic people put their thoughts–their jewels–in a bowl and they fish

out as many as they want all at once. This saying shows that polychronic

people like to talk about different topics all at once. They find it boring to

talk about one topic after another. Therefore, bargaining one thing after

another will be more difficult. Negotiators should be ready for some kind

of topic-hopping with a polychronic person. Actually, topic-hopping may

even be used to distract perpetrators from instrumental demands and to lead

them to more emotional and negotiable topics.

BLOCK 4: LOCUS OF CONTROL (FOCUS OF CONTROL)

Cultures differ greatly in their views of the individual’s place vis-à-vis

the external world. This is true especially on the question of to what degree

human beings can control or manipulate forces outside themselves and

thereby shape their own destiny. While all cultures believe that certain

things happen outside of one’s control, they differ as to what extent they believe

this and on how much one can do in response. The two poles of this dimension,

internal and external, are defined below.

Internal: The focus of control is largely internal within the individual.

There are very few givens in life, few things of circumstances, which have

to be accepted as they can and cannot be changed. There are no limits on

what you can do or become, so long as you set your mind to it and make

the necessary effort. Your success is your own achievement. You are responsible

for what happens to you. Life is what to do; hence, these represent

more activist cultures.

External: The focus of control is largely external to the individual.

Some things in life are predetermined, built into the nature of things.

There are limits beyond which one cannot go and certain givens that cannot

be changed and must be accepted (e.g., “That’s just the way things

Barbara Maria Ostermann

are”). Success is a combination of personal effort and good fortune. Life

is, in large part, what happens to a person. Thus, these represent more fatalistic

cultures.

Negotiation Guidelines and Case Studies

1. Fatalistic Viewpoints Are Obstacles:

People with an external focal point believe in fate rather than in personal

achievements.

Case study: A Russian immigrant was tracked into a bank. He believed

that police were able to catch him because of bad luck. He also thought

that his coming out alive or dead was fairly independent from his behavior.

It is not sensible to argue fate. Sidestep fatalistic viewpoints and try to

make them support goals, which may be attainable in their mind (e.g., “I

understood that you believe, it is not up to you if you survive this situation,

but we could try whether fate is with you and me. I personally am convinced

that it is. Why don’t you come out of this door now?”).

CONCLUSION

These theoretical issues and the negotiation guidelines were included in

the training for the negotiation team of Duesseldorf, North Rhine-

Westphalia. Negotiators regarded the input and the role-plays on some

intercultural case studies with role players from other cultures as very

helpful.

A review of case studies for the year 2000 with the negotiation team of

Muenster revealed that about 32.7% of all negotiations happened with foreigners,

and thus were affected by interethnic issues. In 2000, the negotiation

team of Muenster had to deal with about 5 suicide interventions, 8

suicide/homicide interventions (domestic), 6 riots/demonstrations, 8 hostage

takings, 2 barricaded situations, 5 kidnappings, 1 extortion and 1 warrant

service. From 38 perpetrators, 2 appeared in two cases; therefore,

they dealt with 36 different perpetrators. From these 36 different persons,

11 were non-Germans and intercultural negotiations became necessary.

Question:

What is the most interesting or intriguing idea in the article. Do you agree or disagree with her concepts and ideas. Finally, what did you learn about her ideas.

Please help me and thank you for your help :)

Explanation / Answer

The article talks about how negotiation strategies vary according to cultural differences of perpetrators make. The most interesting idea I feel is the concept of variation in perceptions of time.I have come across Hofstede cultural dimensions too.

But in this article, the author talks about something regarding how different cultures perceive time. I am fascinated because I myself am monochronic. I really use to wonder and actually blame people for not sticking to time. But I also have wished several times that I had the capacity to be like them, to be not afraid of deadlines. I always have a clock ticking in my mind. Monochronic people approach things as if it is the end of life. This just leads to more stress. But the irony is,basically, I am from a polychronic culture. Probably due to western influences in education, many of us became monochronic.This shows that we cannot classify every perosn from a culture strcilty into one group

Though we agree with many of the concepts and ideas, in this era of globalization there is going to be a spread of beliefs, values, and assumptions. This means that such clear classifications may not work always. This leads to increased complexity in understanding behaviour.

As a manager, we need to understand how the system works. A better understanding of the system and its component helps us to better manage the situation. Every employee has different sets of values, motivation factors, beliefs, and perceptions. The article helps us to understand the system and its human components

The article helps in understanding why people behave in a certain way. This helps to remove false assumptions, beliefs etc about others, even those of all who belong to the same culture. This is especially helpful in managerial situations to handle a team. E.g. for those who are individualistic, goal setting should consist of individual objectives, rather than team objectives

I also previously thought that handling multiple tasks is due to purely individualistic ability and orientation. But the article shows that multitasking varies with cultures. We also find that line of reasoning varies from person to person. A person with a greater external locus of control will have a totally different view of undertaking a challenging task. He would attribute his inefficiencies to something out of his control. At the same time, a person with a more internal locus of control will try to handle everything and put more pressure on himself and his peers. Focusing on these little details helps in better managing a team and organizational productivity

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.