Case 1:
Dragged from her bed to a roadside hostage scene, social worker Frances Stewart* built trust with the father so that he would be content to release his son into her care. Graham Hopkins spoke to her about how she maintained her focus on the needs of the toddler
If you followed reports in October 2001 covering the ordeal of a toddler taken hostage by his father in a camper van on the M4 surrounded by armed police, you might have wondered what it had to do with social services.
Well, among the roll-call of police marksmen, helicopters, armed-response Land Rovers, bomb squads, trained police negotiators, fire engines and ambulances that encircled the crime scene one detail was omitted: the child's release was secured with the help of a social worker.
At 2am on Sunday 21 October, the phone rang at the home of social worker Frances Stewart (not her real name - she prefers anonymity because any personal publicity is "not my sort of thing"). Wiltshire police asked her if she would be prepared to help negotiate the release of Adam Ellis from his father, Michael.*
They had called Stewart because Ellis would only hand over the child to someone from his home town in Lincolnshire. Although aware of the potential personal dangers involved, all she saw was a child at risk, and agreed without hesitation. "The little boy's welfare was of paramount importance at the end of the day," says Stewart.
A police car picked up Stewart and a colleague at 3am. The decision not to travel alone was, she says, crucial: "This allowed me to focus primarily on what I had to go and do. It was all very surreal, really. First of all travelling at high speed and then reaching the motorway where there was no traffic."
At the scene, four hours later, the tension was as visible as the 40 or so police cars. Not quite a regular day at the office.
The negotiating team hoped fatigue would lead Ellis into simply giving up. "A very real risk was that he would take the ultimate way out," says Stewart, "but we kept trying to encourage him to give the child up as quickly as possible."
Stewart sat in the negotiating vehicle and spoke to Ellis through a communication device set up in the van by police. This also allowed them to hear what was going on in the van, enabling continuous assessment of Adam's welfare.
"When I spoke to [Ellis] over the link-line," says Stewart, "I confirmed to him who I was and re-assured him where I came from. I wanted to know more about Adam. I knew that he would come with me, and the police would arrest the father, so I needed to know what food Adam liked. Did he have a special toy with him? Did he use nappies? That's what I was there to do. I wasn't there to enter into a debate with him, so when he asked 'what happens when I give you Adam?' the police took over. My job was to build a rapport with the person I'm talking to - this was no different to other circumstances on that level."
In conversation Ellis seemed rational and Stewart found that, in the rush to leave Cornwall, Adam had neither shoes nor toys. So, for 36 hours Ellis had to entertain his bright and lively son. Even without the pressure of the situation and confinement that would prove stressful. But Ellis did not seem edgy or irritable, she says.
"That was his idea," confirms Stewart about Ellis's surrender and offer to come out in only his underpants. "Actually, he suggested coming out naked at first. This seemed to un-nerve the police who were unsure of his motive, but I guess I could see from his point of view that he was trying to prove that he wasn't armed."
Stewart, in a protective jacket, made her way towards Ellis past a police vehicle concealing the arrest team, and two Land Rovers concealing armed police. Ellis handed her Adam, who "seemed a little bemused". Stewart left the scene immediately and went with Adam to hospital where he proved to be healthy. "We then took him home," she says. He was back with his mother by 5.30pm.
This story in some ways typifies the nature of social work - a stressful and potentially dangerous job, but one that Stewart, who has since changed jobs, simply and unassumingly carried out, with all thoughts on the safety of the child and seeking no personal credit.
"My colleague was more aware of the personal risk to me," she says. "I just got on and did the job, if I'm honest. But that's what we're all about." And while such everyday attitudes and successes do not grab the headlines, they certainly lift the heart.
* Names have been changed
Practitioner: Frances Stewart,* social worker.
FIELD: Children and families.
LOCATION: Lincolnshire.
CLIENT: Two and a half year old Adam* had been on holiday with his father, Michael Ellis,* in October 2001 and was due to return to his mother.
CASE HISTORY: Adam had not been returned on time to his mother who contacted the police. They found Ellis and Adam at a holiday park in the South West. When police approached the father they were threatened with what appeared to be a weapon, possibly a gun. Ellis took Adam and drove away in his camper van only to be tracked by police over his 200-mile journey across four counties. Ellis ran out of petrol on the motorway near Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire, where that county's police force took over. A 17-mile stretch of the motorway was closed both ways for more than 30 hours. During the siege, Ellis told police negotiators that if he were to give up his son he would only do so to a social worker from his home town in Lincolnshire.
DILEMMA: A small child in the care of a single parent in a stressful, tense and potentially fatal situation
RISK FACTOR: What harm might the child suffer if the situation is allowed to continue given his father's unpredictability? Also what longer-term emotional damage might be caused by the incident?
OUTCOME: The child was safely and peacefully removed from his father.
* Not real names
CASE notes
Arguments for risk
Police considered Ellis was caring for Adam as best as conditions allowed, although the child was becoming increasingly tetchy. They had been in the van since 7.30pm on Friday and, naturally, by early Sunday morning, they were suffering from stress.
The police could hear what was going on in the camper van and could monitor Ellis's behaviour towards Adam as well as the boy's emotional state.
Ellis had begun making conciliatory noises, specifically that he would be prepared to hand over Adam but only to a social worker from his home town. In order to bring the siege to a conclusion police considered that, with support, a social worker would be able to assist them in this.
Stewart, despite the inherent danger, displayed no hesitation in accepting the challenge. She proved confident and competent and subsequently played an important part in securing Adam's release.
Arguments against risk
Ellis had threatened police seriously enough for them to consider him dangerous, to the extent that enormous resources were deployed to secure the safety of the child - and the protection of those seeking an end to the stand-off.
The time spent in a confined space having to entertain a young child could be causing both father and son considerable stress and, when linked with fatigue, might prove a dangerous combination.
Ellis wanted to maintain a level of control by making specific demands on police, all of which were likely to affect Adam.
The stress of the chase, running out of petrol and realising that there would be consequences fed concerns about unpredictability and potential loss of control.
By bringing an inexperienced negotiator into this tense situation, there was a risk that it could have proven counter-productive.
Independent comment
Generally speaking, third-party negotiators are not called in during a crisis, writes Cecil Pearson. However, in this case, the social worker deployed several proven negotiating tactics that brought the situation to a peaceful conclusion.
The social worker's initial contact with the father is what we in the business refer to as an "ideal" situation. In other words, the hostage-taker is rational. The father had already notified the police that he would only give up his son to a social worker from his home town.
It appears that Stewart depended largely on her creativity, talent for persuasion, alertness, and knowledge of applied psychology. She built trust and came across as a helpful mediator. She used time effectively, which reduced what anxiety the father had. She followed one of the basic guidelines in the negotiation process - to change the attitude of the hostage taker from one of hostility or fear to one of trust. She let him feel that, by talking to her, the cause of his fears and frustration would be eliminated.
There is a slight risk involved when negotiators pay more attention to the hostages than the hostage takers. Some hostage takers feel "they" are not concerned about them. They just want to find out how the hostages are coping. Negotiators should proceed with caution in this area. Face-to-face situations present the highest risk to all involved, and should be avoided if possible.
Cecil Pearson, is a retired police captain based in Las Vegas and co-author of the book Hostage Situations
Case 2:
One of a number of telling anecdotes in consultant Lee E. Miller's new book, UP: Influence Power and the U Perspective: The Art of Getting What You Want, involves Patricia Hambrecht, the former president of auction house Christie's North America. The situation was a delicate negotiation with the seller of an important Van Gogh painting, "Portrait of Dr. Gachet."
A major issue for the attorney representing the selling family was that the family have the absolute right to withdraw the painting from auction if there was a major decline in the stock market--presumably because bids would be lower.
Christie's was spending a million dollars to promote the auction, and obviously didn't want to yank the painting from it. While Hambrecht believed there was little correlation between the market and the price a collector would pay, she put herself in the attorney's shoes and concluded that she absolutely needed to allay his concerns. The solution: a formula whereby the family could withdraw the painting if all three major exchanges at the time--New York, London and Tokyo--fell by a certain percentage for a certain number of days.
As it turned out, the Japanese exchange did fall enough to qualify for that formula--but the other two didn't. Hambrecht, Miller points out, was able to carry off an exceedingly successful auction (the painting sold for a then-record $82 million) because she was able to see the lawyer's perspective and key in on his foremost concern, then satisfy it.
The ability to empathize or understand another's viewpoint, and not simply impose your values on that person, is the central theme of Miller's new book (see Bookshelf, page 14). He believes it's a critical skill for senior executives, and he's spoken at FEI events, including a workshop prior to last year's Current Financial Reporting Issues (CFRI) conference. A Harvard Law School grad-turned human resources executive with companies like TV Guide magazine and R.H. Macy & Co., Miller has fashioned a new career as a consultant to radio and online programs (YourCareerDoctors.com) on career issues and an adjunct business school professor.
What he teaches and preaches is as valuable to finance executives as to anyone else, and could certainly be a career-booster to those who can inculcate these lessons and tailor their behavior accordingly. Underpinning his tenets is the notion that success comes from active dialogue and listening, and not trying to bend others to your will.
"Most books, and most teachers who teach influencing and negotiating and sales all talk about the idea of 'what would I do if I were you?' But your mindset may be totally different--you're not me," Miller said in an interview. "You don't see the world as I do ... If I understand what motivates you, you'll want to help me."
Miller himself is peripatetic, working out of his home office in northern New Jersey, an office at Seton Hall University and others in New York and Morristown, N.J. Talkative and casual, he contends that collaboration and cooperation spring from taking the time and effort to understand the other's "U Perspective"--the way the other person views things--and shaping your approach around it.
"I'm not going to try to convince you that what I'm proposing is right, and you should change your mind and do what I want you to do," he says. "I'm simply going to remind you that what I'm suggesting is what you already believe and already know instinctively is exactly what supports what you already care about. And that's a very simple thing, but it's very powerful."
This concept "works incredibly well overseas," he adds. "In any culture, it pays to understand how people in that culture think, and what they value. And once you understand that, you can really move business and have an impact."
CFOs, Miller adds, "see the world through a prism of accounting, or the idea of staying on budget, while someone in sales doesn't think at all that way. They're thinking about revenues, not about the budget, and [think] 'if I exceed my revenues, no one's going to care.' When you understand what's motivating them, you can get them to do what you need them to do." For instance, the finance person might gain far more cooperation by focusing less on the budget and talking more about revenue in terms of costs per dollars of additional revenue--a metric the sales force can relate to.
Miller says he's trying to give financial executives tools to motivate their people, and not just with the siren song of more money. "There may be a lot more to it than compensation--if you have the wrong compensation, you're going to get the wrong results. If you have the right compensation but don't motivate the values properly ...
"Most people want to do a good job. You just need to tell them what that is, and that's what good leadership is about--setting up values that people buy into. If the salespeople see that the financial executive is not their adversary, but part of their team, [the sales effort] will be more effective."
Recruitment Also at Play
Another issue where the U Perspective is very powerful, Miller argues, is recruitment, where executives often strain to find the right incentives to persuade someone to work for them. Everybody assumes money is the main motivator, Miller says, but that's not necessarily true.
He uses an example in his book of an executive who was being heavily recruited to relocate. While the potential employer assumed his second thoughts revolved around getting more money, it offered to boost his compensation. However, his principal worry was his elderly parents, and he ended up staying put because he wasn't willing to move hundreds of miles away without being able to move them as well.
Recruitment issues include women vs. men, family issues, career opportunities, quality of life and work-life balance, training, projects and challenges, Miller says. By active listening, you can learn what people care about.
Analytical people may assume they know what motivates people, based on facts and figures, but those assumptions may be too facile. A top technology person may be fixated on having the latest software and gadgetry, Miller argues, and may forgo a larger salary if he or she can be guaranteed, say, $5,000 to acquire that extra technology.
"You want to talk to people in the language they're comfortable with," Miller says. "If I'm trying to convince financial executives, I'm going to be talking numbers. If I'm trying to convince someone in marketing, it's going to be about process--'If we don't do this right, I don't care what the ROI is, it's not going to happen.' It's about how we're going to strategize our marketing so we get the business in."
Is there a difference in terms of gender approaches to managing people? Miller says it's more a matter of style than simply generalizing that women are more empathetic. Most men, perhaps 70 percent, have a "competitive" style that is more head-on, while 70 percent of women tend to be "collaborative" in their approach, he says, adding: "Women, however, are better listeners."
Miller compares the skill sets of a good listener and negotiator with a full tool set. "If my only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail," he says with a grin. "If I give you every tool, you can decide what the proper tool is, and that correlates with the U Perspective."
RELATED ARTICLE: TAKE AWAYS
* The ability to empathize or understand another's viewpoint, and not simply impose your values on that person, is the central theme of Lee Miller's teachings and a new book.
* Analytical people, like those in finance, may assume they know what motivates people. But those assumptions can be tricky, and money is often simply not the biggest issue.
* Miller compares the skill sets of a good listener and negotiator with a full tool set. If you have only a hammer, he says, "everything looks like a nail."