PROBLEM SOLVING

Broadly speaking, problem-solving approaches to understanding and resolving conflict deal with conflict as a puzzle, or interpersonal dilemma, to be worked out. There are two fundamental parts to the problem-solving process:

1.

is, or identifying the problem)

2. Developing alternative solutions to the problem

In this section, we give an overview of some problem-solving approaches to conflict resolution. We discuss some of the research that supports the use of problem-solving approaches, as well as research that helps us understand the conditions under which problem solving is more or less likely to be undertaken. We also consider some of the major critiques of problem-solving approaches, both in the literature and out in the field.

Problem Solving as the Search for Good, Constructive, Mutually Satisfying Solutions

An important part of the motivation to engage in problem solving is a desire to take some of the heat out of the process—to move people away from being stuck in their anger, their desire for revenge, and so on, and focus them on finding a way out.

One view of how problem-solving approaches attempt to do this has to do with a particular understanding of what the word “problem” means. One sense of the word is as dilemma, obstacle, difficulty, or predicament—generally, a bad thing. Another is as puzzle, enigma, riddle, or question—often seen as a challenge and even an opportunity for growth. Conflicts are often felt to be problems in the first sense of the word: as difficulties or predicaments. Problem­solving approaches to conflict resolution attempt to recast the conflict as a problem in the second sense—as puzzles or riddles—and attempt to engage the parties in solving those puzzles. In a training or intervention, we might hear the notion put something like this: “We’re in conflict.

Along these lines, Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim suggest that “problem solving can be defined as any effort to develop a mutually acceptable solution to a conflict” (1994, p. 168; emphasis added). Developing mutually acceptable solutions is the hallmark of problem-solving approaches.

A Discussion of Problem-Solving Approaches. In the third edition of their book Social Conflict, Pruitt and Kim (2004) (earlier editions were coauthored with the late Jeffrey Rubin) offer one of the best, most useful discussions available of problem-solving approaches. So it seems worthwhile to devote a few paragraphs to their work at the outset of this chapter.

Although the phrase “any effort” in the preceding quote might leave the definition a bit broad, those authors go on to clarify the highest aspirations of problem-solving approaches: “At its best, problem solving involves a joint effort to find a mutually acceptable solution. The parties or their representatives talk freely to one another. They exchange information about their interests and priorities, work together to identify the true issues dividing them, brainstorm in search of alternatives that bridge their opposing interests, and collectively evaluate those alternatives from the viewpoint of their mutual welfare” (Pruitt and Kim, 2004, p. 190).

In describing problem-solving approaches, the same authors describe two broad classes of outcomes that can be sought: compromise (meeting in the middle through a process of sacrifice on both sides) and integrative solutions (those in which all parties’ needs are considered and met).

The second type of solution, the integrative, is the hoped-for goal in problem­solving approaches, though it may not always be realistically possible (more on this later).

• Expanding the pie (finding ways to work together to create more of a resource to be divided)

• Nonspecific compensation (finding new ways to compensate a party for yielding on an issue)

• Cost cutting (finding ways to reduce the cost for a party in yielding on an issue)

• Logrolling (each side concedes on issues it believes are less important, building momentum toward agreement and goodwill)

• Bridging (new options are created that satisfy critical underlying interests, if not the initial demands that were put on the table)

To illustrate, imagine the case of a hypothetical labor negotiation in which management and a union are divided over a range of issues, including wages, medical insurance, disability, workplace safety conditions, and productivity goals. The first approach, expanding the pie, might entail raising prices to bring in more revenue to support the compensation desired by the union, while also providing more profit for the company. The second, nonspecific compensation, might oblige management to offer, say, additional vacation time or a flex-time arrangement to compensate for a concession on wage demands. Cost cutting might involve finding a new insurance company that is able to provide better benefits without costing the company as much as the old plan would have charged. The parties might also engage in the third approach, logrolling: the union concedes on a minor change in productivity goals (which union repre­sentatives view as less important in this case), and management concedes on an issue of work safety conditions that is relatively inexpensive to fix. The com­bination of agreements builds momentum toward reaching agreement on some of the more difficult issues. Finally, the parties might find a bridging solution, in which moderate redesign of the facility and work flow (1) eliminates the safety issue (union interest) and (2) increases productivity (management interest) without imposing an unacceptable burden on the workers, (3) thereby generating the revenue to pay for increased wages and benefits (union inter­est) as well as profits (management interest).

A key component, not only to the approach described by Pruitt and Kim, but to most of the problem-solving approaches, is analyzing underlying interests, those often unspoken real needs that produce the publicly stated demands in the first place. In addition, Pruitt and Kim suggest pushing further to look for interests under those interests, and so on, in an effort to find interests that are bridgeable—that is, satisfiable in newly created, mutually acceptable ways.

Pruitt, and Kim (2004) offer a good description of a problem-solving process for conflicts of interest. They suggest (1) determining whether there is a real conflict of interest; (2) determining one’s own interests, setting high aspirations and sticking to them; and (3) seeking a way to reconcile both parties’ aspira­tions. Note that steps 1 and 2 are part of the diagnosis phase of problem solving, and step 3 represents the phase of generating alternatives. If step 3 is particu­larly difficult, it may be necessary to lower aspirations and search some more. Steps 2 and 3 represent the core of many problem-solving approaches: developing clarity as to the real issues and interests and developing mutually satisfactory solutions.

Evidence of Better Outcomes with Problem-Solving Approaches. There is evidence for the effectiveness of problem-solving approaches, in both the short term (reaching agreements, short-term satisfaction) and the long term (long-term satisfaction with, adherence to, and quality of agreements).

In a key study, Kressel and his colleagues (1994) compared the effectiveness of mediators using a problem-solving style (PSS), focused on good problem solving rather than settlement itself, with those using a settlement-oriented style (SOS), focused on the goal of getting an agreement, “more or less independent of the quality of the agreements” (p.

Although Kressel and colleagues focused on long-term outcomes, Zubek and her colleagues (1992) looked at short-term benefits of problem-solving behav­ior in mediation in community mediation centers. They demonstrated a greater likelihood of short-term success in mediation (STSM) with joint problem solving and less STSM with hostile and contending behavior by the conflicting parties. They then looked at the mediator behaviors that led to STSM and found them to include those that stimulate thinking and structure discussion. In addition, the more mediators applied pressure on disputants to reach agreement, the lower the rates of reaching agreement and goal achievement, satisfaction with the agreement, and satisfaction with the conduct of the hearing, which lends fur­ther support for the PSS versus SOS findings of Kressel and colleagues.

In yet another context, van de Vliert, Euwema, and Huismans (1995) found that problem solving tended to enhance effectiveness in conflict for police sergeants, with both superiors and subordinates. This is the type of traditional, hierarchical context many critics point to as one in which a problem-solving approach is unlikely to gain acceptance or be effective. Further, it is worth noting that problem solving tended to enhance the sergeants’ effectiveness in conflicts with both their subordinates and their superiors (though the latter effect represented a nonsignificant trend).

Finally, Carnevale and Pruitt (1992) reviewed a wide range of both experi­mental and field research on problem solving in negotiation and mediation. They concluded that problem solving is much more likely than other approaches to lead to win-win solutions to conflicts. In addition, they found that problem solving is more likely both to be engaged in, and to be effective, when disputants are concerned about the other party’s welfare than when they are focused solely on their own.

Research That Predicts Use of Problem Solving. Given the potential benefits of problem-solving approaches, it is helpful to know about the conditions under which disputants are more, or less, likely to engage in problem-solving behavior.

Some information is available. Strutton, Pelton, and Lumpkin (1993) found that if the psychological climate of an organization was characterized by higher levels of (1) cohesion, (2) fairness, (3) recognition of success, and (4) openness to innovation, members were more likely to choose problem-solving and persua­sion strategies and less likely to engage in bargaining and politicking. In a study pointing to factors that might inhibit problem solving, Dant and Schul (1992) found that a group making frequent use of integrative problem-solving conflict resolution strategies among its members still preferred directive third-party intervention when stakes were high, issues were complex, there were significant policy implications, and dependence on the organization was high.

Carnevale and Pruitt (1992) as well as Pruitt and Rubin (1986) argue that disputants’ relative levels of concern for their own and each other’s interests predict the conflict resolution strategy that is adopted. Thus, when disputants do not care about their own or the other’s outcomes, they are likely to adopt a strategy of inaction; when they are concerned with the other’s outcome, but not their own, they are likely to yield; and when they are primarily concerned about their own interests, they tend to adopt contending strategies. But when disputants are concerned both about their own interests and the other’s as well (holding a dual concern), they are more likely to engage in problem solving. This suggests that strategies and techniques that help to cultivate a concern for the other’s interests and outcomes help to promote problem solving in conflict situations. (See also, in Chapter One, the section on initiation of cooperation.)

Individual and Social Interaction Perspectives on Problem Solving

Consistent with the viewpoint put forth by Carnevale and Pruitt (1992), another angle on problem solving in conflict has come from the social cognitive literature, particularly from developmental researchers interested in the development of social understanding and its relationship to thought processes during conflict and other social interactions. Within cognitive psychology, problem solving is viewed as a cognitive process, very much in the sense of working through puzzles (solving a math problem, stacking crates to get the banana, and so on). Social cognition theorists have tended to look at conflict resolution as a particular kind of cognitive problem solving, that of solving interpersonal problems.

Two complementary ways of looking at interpersonal conflict have arisen from this perspective. One takes an information-processing approach, in which each phase of the interpersonal problem-solving process is analyzed against an ideal standard (for example, Dodge, 1980; Spivack and Shure, 1976). The individual goes through an internal problem-solving process in determining how to engage with the other. More effective strategies are equated with success at achieving some predetermined outcome. The phases include (1) identifying the problem, (2) generating alternative strategies, (3) evaluating consequences, and (4) using new or different strategies for resolution. It is important to note that these phases may be executed well or poorly and may lead to a decision to engage in con­tentious, collaborative, or any other type of tactics. Although these phases have been drawn from cognitive psychology, research has shown them to be applica­ble to the realm of social problems (see review by Rubin and Krasnor, 1986). If collaborative tactics are chosen by both parties, a joint problem-solving process may then occur that can be described with the same four phases.

The other approach emphasizes general social competencies such as com­munication skills, skills in finding common ground, and other social skills that are discussed in various chapters in this book. From this perspective, one of the primary social cognitive tasks that conflict presents to the individual is social perspective coordination. In other words, how do I understand the other’s per­spective, and develop an understanding of the situation that accounts for both that perspective and my own? Within this framework, a model of interpersonal negotiation strategies (INS) has been described that depicts a developmental progression in the ability to coordinate social perspectives in conflict, ranging from an egocentric inability to differentiate subjective perspectives (that is, mine from yours) to the ability to coordinate the self’s and the other’s perspec­tives in terms of the relationship between them, or from a third-person view­point (Selman, 1980; Yeates, Schultz, and Selman, 1991). The functional steps of the INS model are similar to the steps articulated in information-processing approaches—that is, defining the problem, generating alternative strategies, selecting and implementing a specific strategy, and evaluating outcomes—but the INS model integrates additional developmental levels of perspective taking (egocentric, unilateral, reciprocal, and mutual) that underlie each of the func­tional steps (Selman, 1980). Here are descriptions adapted from Selman (1980) and Weitzman and Weitzman (2000):

• At the egocentric level, which is characterized by impulsive, fight-or- flight thinking, the other is viewed as an object and the self is seen as being in conflict with the external world. The types of behaviors that might be seen at this level are whining, fleeing, ignoring, hitting, cursing, or fighting.

• At the unilateral level, which is characterized by obeying or command­ing the other person, although the other is now understood to have interests, the self is seen as the principal subject of the negotiation, with interests separate from the other. The types of behaviors typically seen at this level are threatening the other person, going behind the other’s back, avoiding the problem, or waiting for someone else to help.

• At the reciprocal level, which is characterized by exchange-oriented negotiations and attempts at influence, the needs of the other are appre­ciated but considered after the needs of the self. Typical behaviors are accommodation, barter, asking for reasons, persuasion, giving reasons, and appealing to a mediator.

• At the mutual level, which is characterized by collaborative negotia­tions, the needs of both the self and the other are coordinated, and a mutual, third-person perspective is adopted in which both sets of inter­ests are taken into account. The types of behaviors that might be seen at this level are various forms of collaboration to develop satisfaction of mutual goals simultaneously.

In our work, we have used the INS model to explain the nature of everyday conflict in the lives of adults (Weitzman, 2001; Weitzman, Chee, and Levkoff, 1999; Weitzman and Weitzman, 2000). Our research has revealed some dis­continuity between strategy choice and its social cognitive foundation. For example, in a study with elderly women, we found that although many women articulated reciprocal or mutual social perspective-taking skills, many of these same women opted for strategies associated with the unilateral level (Weitzman and Weitzman, 2000). Similarly, Yeates, Schultz, and Selman (1991) have shown that although the essential sequence of problem-solving steps is stable across conflict contexts, perspective taking often is not. Cultural norms (for example, where older women are socialized to yield, particularly to men, rather than press to get their needs met), perceived power differentials between the parties in conflict, and other contextual factors may lead to the use of less sophisticated strategies, regardless of perspective-taking ability.

So even though the basic steps of individual problem solving remain fairly constant across situations, good, collaborative outcomes do not. The key issue this research brings to light is that an individual’s decision whether or not to coor­dinate his or her perspective with that of the other person is a central aspect of the conflict resolution process, one that may be highly relevant for training.

Critiques

There are also some serious critiques of problem-solving approaches to conflict resolution, and they deserve some attention here as well. For simplicity, we summarize them here as the Bush and Folger critique and the skeptic’s critique.

The Bush and Folger Critique. Bush and Folger (1994) argue that problem solving, an orientation they see as underlying a “satisfaction story” of media­tion (focusing only on satisfying the disputants and not taking advantage of the broader opportunities inherent in mediation), is narrow and mechanistic in that it assumes that conflict is a problem. This is seen as at odds with widely held values in the dispute resolution field to the effect that, because of its capacity for stimulating growth and leading to change, conflict is a good thing.

We happen to share those values, but we believe there is a fundamental error in this critique. That is, Bush and Folger (1994) cast what the problem-solving mediator does as looking to solve problems in the first of the two senses we offered at the beginning of this chapter: problems as obstacles, difficulties or predicaments, that is, “bad things.” The result is that their argument frames problem-solving approaches to mediation as more or less equivalent to the settlement-oriented style described by Kressel and colleagues (1994). This misses the fact that the work of Kressel and colleagues, Zubek and colleagues (1992), and others has found substantial differences between such approaches. Cooperative problem-solving approaches in mediation are working on a problem- as-puzzle model, which is very much consistent with the values of conflict as opportunity. If conflict is to be taken as an opportunity for change and growth, it is imperative that disputants move beyond fighting and take full advantage of the power of collaboration to develop new and better alternatives. That is the essence of problem-solving approaches. They can lead to transformation and empowerment of others as this approach becomes a general, personal orienta­tion to resolving conflict.

The Skeptic's Critique. There is a skeptic's critique often heard out in the field— during training or in conversation among practitioners—that says, “This is fine on paper, but it isn't realistic.” In detail, it goes something like this. People are angry and do not want to solve problems, work with each other, or talk to each other. What may help to persuade those holding this view of problem solving is that research and practical experience are firm in their conclusions. People do respond better to problem-solving approaches than settlement-oriented ones, they reach agreement more often and faster, they report being more satisfied, and both agreements and satisfaction hold up better in the long run.

Another critique argues that people often do not know what actually consti­tutes “the problem,” and even when they think they do know, each side often has a very different problem in mind. Recall, however, that an essential part of what problem-solving approaches do is attempt to get the parties to focus on identifying the issues at the heart of their quarrel (in other words, to diagnose the nature of their conflict) and do not assume that those central, underlying issues are already known. They then ask the parties to treat the collection of issues (or needs or interests or other types of concern) on the table as a mutual problem to be solved collectively. Note that there is no assumption here that the parties have the same basic issues in mind as they approach the nego­tiating table, nor that they define their conflict in terms similar enough even to give it the same name. The core of problem-solving approaches is helping par­ties see their own interest in finding solutions that meet not only their needs but those of the other as well. That is often hard to do, and so there is this chal­lenge: What kind of solution can we come up with such that my needs, which are A, B, and C, and your needs, which are X, Y, and Z, can all be met at least acceptably well? It is this puzzle that is the problem to be solved.