PROBLEM SOLVING AS STRATEGY

Problem solving is a strategy for achieving a goal. When that goal is to resolve conflict, a “problem-solving approach” operates in several ways: to change the focus of the disputants (e.g.

Individual problem solving

Interest in the problem solving of individuals goes back at least as far as Aristotle, through many subsequent philosophers, and emerging as a significant area of research in modern psychology. A problem is conceived of as any situation where “an organism has a goal but lacks a clear or well-learned route to the goal” (Dominowski & Bourne, 1994). Problem solving captures that process by which the organism arrives at behavior that is effective in achieving its goal. This process is one engaged in by many organisms besides humans, and some would argue by computers as well. In the next section, we will consider groups as problem-solving entities.

Two issues drive the consideration of prob­lem solving: mental representation and mental computation (Dominowski & Bourne, 1994). In other words, how are the external world and its contingencies represented internally, and how are these representations changed, augmented, and acted upon? While some consider trial and error to be one form of working toward a problem solution (Van Gundy, 1988), Hunt (1994) suggests that “problem solving occurs when we understand the external world by exploring an internal mental model of that world, instead of poking around in the external world directly” (p.

Many writers credit a sea change in thinking and research on problem solving to Newell, Shaw, and Simon's (1958) proposal that computer programs be used as models for human thought. With both humans and computers, reasoning involves the manipu­lation of the internal world, though differ­ences in representation between humans and computers may mean that the transformations also differ (Hunt, 1994). Newell and Simon's (1972) basic model for problem solving suggested assessment of the problem space with nodes and links between them, and then the development of a strategy for moving from node to node in order to eliminate the gap between the current state and the goal state.

Subsequent research indicated that though this may characterize the process used by those who do not know clearly how to solve a problem, those with domain expertise have been found to proceed differently. Experts rely on schemata, which follow upon a sophisticated analysis of situations. “Schemata...are socially acquired ways of dealing with problems [and] provide an orderly way to shift attention from one aspect of a problem to another” (Hunt, 1994, p. 227). Experts short-circuit the search process by applying previously learned rules.

In sum, one fundamental aspect of problem solving involves gathering information to better understand the problem space, and manipulating that information so that it invokes and creatively combines already- learned solutions and strategies for action.

Group problem solving

It is not a huge leap to see how one might use a group to increase information available for problem solving. After all, schemata used to streamline or short-circuit the search process are themselves often socially constructed and transmitted.

Early work on group problem solving identified the benefits of utilizing groups to produce more efficient solutions (Brown, 1986; Burnstein, 1982; Hackman, 1990; Osborn, 1957; Paulus et al., 2001). More people meant more information available to set the problem and formulate a strategy for solving it.

Influence from new insights into human problem solving more generally have led to enhanced models for problem solving in groups. As in individual problem solving, group problem solving can benefit from a structure to the approach. While routine problems can be solved via standard operating procedures, and more uncertain problems can draw on heuristics and past experience, the most complex, uncertain, and ambiguous a problem is, the more likely custom-made solutions will be needed (Van Gundy, 1988). Problem solving provides the structure needed to solve ill-structured problems. In groups, this typically involves techniques for both analyzing and refining the problem, and for generating ideas for solutions. For example, redefinition methods provide new perspective on problems, while analytic methods break down the problem into its elements in order that interrelationships can be identified.

Group problem solving has multiple stages. Simon (1977) proposed a three-stage process: intelligence, where a problem is recognized and then further defined through information gathering, design, where problem solutions are generated, and finally, choice, when options are selected and implemented.

Group problem solving and conflict: cooperation vs. competition

As outlined earlier, groups can provide more information and work creatively to solve problems. Whether parties actually work together or instead they work at cross purposes is primarily a function of the situation, as parties perceive it is defined. Morton Deutsch early on identified patterns of cooperative and competitive contexts that were both mutually exclusive and self-reinforcing. In other words, cooperative behavior led to fur­ther cooperation, while competitive behavior led to further competition. This reciprocity rule was captured in his process model first as his “crude law of social relations,” namely that “the characteristic processes and effects elicited by a given type of social relationship...tend also to elicit that type of social relationship” (Deutsch, 1973, p. 365, italics added).

Deutsch's theories on cooperation and com­petition were linked to goals. Parties pursue goals through engaging in activities, and when activities of parties are incompatible, a conflict exists. According to Deutsch, conflict behavior can be predicted by the relationship that one perceives between one's own goals and those of another party. If one perceives incompatible activities (conflict) but a pos­itive relation between one's own goals and those of another, in that the goals are only reachable if the parties work together (positive interdependence), then cooperative behavior will result.

Cooperative behaviors include readiness to be helpful; shared, open communication; trusting and friendly attitudes; perceptions of similarity; awareness and emphasis on common interests and values; confidence in one's own ideas and the value others see in them; coordination of effort and division of labor; and an emphasis on enhancing mutual power, sometimes through enhancing the other. Competitive behaviors include tactics of coercion, threat, or deception; poor or deceptive communication; suspicious and hostile attitudes; mistrust; duplication of effort; minimizing similarity; awareness and emphasis on differing interests and deempha­sizing common interests and values; and an emphasis on increasing the power difference and therefore the need to accumulate power to oneself (Deutsch, 1973; 2000).

It is helpful to distinguish between coop­erative and competitive behaviors on the one hand, and the context that produces them on the other. Some might call such contexts “cooperative or competitive con­texts” because of the behaviors they elicit, while others prefer a cleaner conceptual separation, particularly for research purposes (Van deVliert & Janssen, 2001). Cooperative or competitive behaviors arise from cognitive and affective responses to certain perceived goal linkages (Van deVliert & Janssen, 2001). “Positive goal linkages foster the willingness to allow someone else's actions to be sub­stituted for one's own (substitutability), the development of positive attitudes toward each other (positive cathexis), and the readiness to be influenced positively by one another (inducibility), which subsequently results in cooperative behavior” (p. 278). Con­trariwise, perceived negative goal linkages result in no substitutability, negative atti­tudes, and an unwillingness to be influenced by the other, which produces competitive behavior.

Most situations are actually a mix of both positive and negative goal linkages: so-called mixed motive situations (Deutsch, 1973: Lax & Sebenius, 1986; Schelling, 1960). Rather than propose that either competition or cooperation will dominate depending on the relative strengths of the perceived goal linkages, most propose a mixture in the resulting process (Deutsch, 2000; Van de Vliert & Janssen, 2001). In other words, conflicts are typically mixes of cooperative and competitive processes, and “the course of the conflict will be determined by the nature of the mixture” (Deutsch, 2000, p. 14).

Problem solving in negotiation: integrative vs. distributive

Problem solving is the process of closing the gap between what exists and what is desired: the process of reaching a goal. If the task of achieving this goal is defined as a group task, then in addition to the cognitive and motiva­tional factors of individual problem solvers, the problem solving will be influenced by group dynamics. Group problem solving can both be more creative, and subject to negative group influences such as groupthink noted above. In addition to the information pro­cessing of the individuals involved, factors such as the confluence or divergence of the goals of group members, alternative agendas, leadership, and conformity processes will all influence the capabilities and form of groups engaging in problem solving.

One of the challenges of group problem solving is for the members to perceive that they are indeed one group attempting to solve a problem together, rather than two or more groups competing for their definition of the problem and/or the solution to triumph. This challenge, of framing (or reframing) the problem as a joint problem to be solved together rather than as a competition between parties for domination of their own solution, captures the essence of problem solving in conflict resolution.

The roots to this notion of joint problem solving, joint gains, and creating value, so critical to modern processes of conflict resolution, reach back to several sources. Many within the field of alternative dispute resolution trace the notion of integrative solutions to the 1920s and the work of Mary Parker Follett (Davis, 1989; Graham, 1996; Menkel-Meadow, 2000). Though developed perhaps more prominently in the work of Walton and McKersie (1965) and others (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Fisher & Ury, 1981; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986), Follett framed three ways to handle conflict: domination, compromise, and integration. She made a point of distinguishing the last two: conflict could be constructive, and did not neces­sarily require parties to give up or give in on things most important to them. Parties could increase the likelihood of integrative solutions “by bringing differences out into the open, facing the conflicts and underlying desires, evaluating and re-valuing desires and preferences when the other parties' desires are made known, and looking for solutions in which the ‘interests may fit into each other'” (Menkel-Meadow, 2000). Her examples of integration have now become classic stories for teaching and training in integrative bargaining: of the two library patrons negotiating over opening a window, where one wanted fresh air and the other wanted to avoid a draft, and of two sisters and the last orange, where one wanted the flesh and the other needed the peel. In each case, what appears to be distributive problems where only one can be satisfied, become problems that can be solved creatively once underlying desires are known.

Trained as a political scientist, Follett applied the notions of democratic gover­nance to improve the functioning of groups in organizations. She “was interested in how groups, using principles of democratic governance, could work together and produce better outcomes than hierarchically produced orders” (Menkel-Meadow, 2000, p. 7). In this, she foreshadows the seminal work of Kurt Lewin and colleagues (Lewin et al., 1939) on democratic vs. autocratic leadership and group functioning, as well as the work on creative group problem solving discussed above.

In sum, problem solving in a conflict resolution context, or frankly, in any con­text involving more than one individual, adds additional complexities. In addition to identifying or setting the problem, and then developing a plan for moving from the current state to the desired state, problem solving with more than one person layers on additional agendas and motives, concerns over leadership, perceptions about the other's goals, and norms about behavior in the perceived context. Though informationally “two heads may be better than one,” the jump to more than one problem solver layers on perceptions about each others' goals that result in strategies that are either cooperative or competitive, integrative or distributive, dominating or democratic. In order to move the perceived primary task away from the “social” task of dominating or “winning” over others, to the “instrumental” task of achieving a joint goal, then these other dynamics must be managed. Problem-solving approaches attempt to harness the positive dynamics of group interaction (increased information, diversity of knowledge, creativity) while managing the negative dynamics of group interaction (inclinations toward competition and domination which reduce the group's cre­ative and problem-solving capacities) in order to produce both efficient problem solutions and the motivation to implement them jointly.

Prescriptions resulting from research

While the research reviewed above has been descriptive and explanatory (Van de Vliert & Janssen, 2001), the following prescriptions can be inferred to inform better conflict resolution practice. Based on the research reviewed, processes should be structured so as to:

• change "concern" for the other

• change perceptions of the other's goals

• change perception of the structure of the task - from fixed-sum to variable-sum

• change goal orientation - from maximizing individual outcomes to maximizing joint outcomes

• improve the accuracy of perception of the other's priorities

• improve perception of the compatibility of interests.

Several works build on these strategies to outline and prescribe processes to achieve more constructive solutions to conflict (Fisher & Ury, 1981; Mnookin et al., 2000; Moore, 2003; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986).