At one time in my life, I had a job where anywhere from one to eight hours of my day was spent negotiating with terrorists. These people weren’t the self detonating variety, but rather were possessed of a Seppuku mentality. To be clear, none of these individuals were Samurai, but they had adopted a code of conduct where they were compelled to fall onto their swords if they felt that the integrity of that code had been violated.
After many negotiations I came to a couple of conclusions about this faction of humanity.
I concluded that no matter the substance of the negotiation, that the prime directive of their code was that they must get their way always. And preferably unconditionally. Otherwise their honor was besmirched, and they had no choice but to fall on their sword. About half of the time they would threaten a Kamikaze attack, believing that their personal sacrifice was significant enough to sink the ship. Most of the time their attack sputtered and crashed before it reached the fleet, but occasionally one of them would manage to crash and burn into a ship. Sometimes there were casualties, but damage control was always effective and the ship sailed on.
But whether Kamikaze or Seppuku, the terroristic behavior was always about not getting their way.
I wondered sometimes what path these people had taken to adulthood. It seemed logical to me that somewhere in their childhood or teens, that circumstances had to have occurred where their demands were not met. I wondered if they had always reacted with a threatening tantrum, and if what I was witnessing was an adult version of laying down screaming in the toy aisle at Wal-Mart. I wondered if this behavior was a common occurrence for them because they also applied the code in their personal relationships.
I wondered if they were parents. And once I confirmed that they’d managed to reproduce, I wondered how confused the kids were with having to live by the code during the times when the terrorist parent had custody.
The custody thought, that terrorists tend not to be able to maintain relationships very well, was an assumption. But that assumption was almost always correct, and that statistic indicated to me that the code was a lifestyle, and not just a work persona. This distinction is important when negotiating with workplace terrorists. Because a face saving proffering is more likely to be acceptable to a terrorist not bound perpetually by the code.
Evidence of the capability to maintain a personal relationship suggested to me that they were only part time terrorists, and that they could perhaps be reasoned with. And so I tried to see if a valid explanation for why they couldn’t have their way would prevent a metaphorical hari-kari.
Sometimes I was successful and sometimes I was not.
In each instance where I was unable to reach a compromise with the terrorist, I would invariably pose the following question to them.
Is this the hill you want to die on?
The question is a simple one but the answer came with consequences. The more astute terrorists understood that their answer was going to determine their near term employment. They also understood that perhaps a moment of reflection on their part was in order. The more code committed terrorists saw the question as a challenge to their integrity, and they typically responded in the affirmative, that yes they were prepared to die on that hill.
And so they died on that hill.
Because they couldn’t have their way.
I understand the logic of the never negotiate with terrorists axiom. But the refusal to talk doesn’t give you the opportunity to assess any options. Sometimes you can persuade the terrorist to amend their code, and we can put the swords away and get on with the project. I felt that the effort had value, and from time to time I was successful. Having said that, I would also make a calculation prior to beginning discussions with the insurgent about the value I felt they brought to the table. Their skillset was their bargaining chip and I needed to decide how much effort I was willing to expend to retain that skill.
Everyone’s replaceable, but in a competitive market there was always a judgement call about how many Jihadi performances were worth enduring to retain a particular talent. And the cost wasn’t just in dollars. The terrorists were a contaminant, and eventually they needed to be contained or purged before they spawned an internecine scene.
Once the terrorist decides to fall onto a sharp object then they had two choices. Accept their fate and think of themselves as a noble martyr for the code. Or crash and burn in a maximum casualty event.
After a time, it was depressing to watch. I felt like I was in a Shakespeare play where swords and tragedy were always the final act, and although all the actors knew the plot we never the less played the roles we were destined to play.
I still maintain that the necessity of a death on the hill was very much in the hands of the terrorist themselves. But sometimes the proclivity for falling on sharp objects was so robust that an elevated evisceration was preordained.
So why struggle at length with the inevitable? If the terrorist drew the sword from their scabbard enough times then it was necessary to provide the hill.