INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS

Problem solving, when referring to conflict resolution approaches, has come to have more than one meaning as a term of art. These meanings are not unrelated conceptually, but as the term is used differently in different subsets of the field, it will be reviewed separately here also.

First, in the work of intergroup and international conflict resolution, problem­solving approaches have come to mean off- the-record, face-to-face meetings between members of adversarial groups, where a third party facilitates participants working through a structured agenda that asks par­ticipants to consider the concerns of all parties participating, the shape of possible solutions, and the constraints faced by all parties participating to accepting the varying possible solutions. Underlying this approach is a goal of addressing basic human needs, with the assumption that frustrated basic human needs is the source of serious conflicts. The confidential nature of such meetings is meant to allow for more candid discussions and more creativity in the generation of new options and makes it more politically possible for influentials to attend. Joint action steps are often devised. Such an approach is typically, but not always, used specifically with influentials in order to maximize the impact of new insights and solutions.

By contrast, in the area of mediation more generally, problem-solving approaches have come to be applied to the style and school of mediation that stresses a focus on identifying underlying interests and reaching integrative agreements. This is contrasted by authors such as Bush and Folger (1994/2004) with other mediation approaches such as transformative approaches, where the emphasis is not on reaching an agreement, but rather on changing the participants and their way of relating.

The use of problem solving as a frame for the task in a negotiation has an even longer history, and thus will be useful for setting the context for these approaches. Across the spectrum of human cultures, one finds multiple means for conflict management (Gulliver, 1979; Moore, 2003; Nader & Todd, 1978). Within this spectrum, two methods are of particular usefulness to contrast: adjudication and negotiation. These two forms of conflict management may be more or less formal, and more or less institutionalized, but the primary difference between them is the locus of the decision making (or problem solving, in this context), which in turn influences both the nature of the relationship and the interaction between the parties (Gulliver, 1979). In adjudication, the parties are supplicants to an authority figure who makes the decision; in some variants such as arbitration, the parties choose to give this authority over to a third party. However, in negotiation, or its variant of mediated negotiations (mediation), the parties retain the role of decision maker. Though one party may have more power or influence than the other party, a negotiation still requires mutual influence and the accession of both parties, thus each party must attempt to influence the other. The negotiation process requires parties to communicate, to learn how to influence each other, and to develop some level of collusion and coordination.

Negotiation assumes interdependence, thus parties must influence the other to achieve their own goals. Influencing the other in a negotiation can run the spectrum from persuasion to coercion. Problem solving in negotiation, whether in interpersonal or inter­national, suggests a framing of the task from one where one forces one's solution or decision, to a task where “two heads are better than one” and the parties solve the problem together. The dynamic of the struggle for dominance, of the need to “win,” may still play a role; however, the joint responsibility for solving a problem becomes the primary focus.