UNDERSTANDING PROBLEM SOLVING AND DECISION MAKING IN CONFLICT SITUATIONS

Our simple model of the interaction of problem solving and decision making in conflict resolution (Figure 9.1) offers a framework for integrating what we know about these processes.

The PSDM Model Revisited

We have proposed that problem solving and decision making be viewed as inte­gral parts of the cooperative conflict resolution process. We have also sug­gested that decision making takes place both during and after problem solving and that at each point some decisions are made by the parties as individuals and some by the parties together.

Both problem-solving and decision-making approaches to conflict resolution, be they conscious designs of the professional mediator or spontaneous behaviors by the most naive of disputants, fundamentally work with the basic dynamics of cooperation and competition, as discussed at greater length in other parts of this book (see Chapter One). Briefly, if conflict is approached as a cooperative endeavor in which the parties see their outcomes as positively correlated, people tend to work hard to create a resolution that maximizes both parties’ outcomes. The goal becomes to do as well as possible for both self and other, rather than to engage in the kind of destructive win-lose struggle that exemplifies competitive, contentious conflict.

In the kind of integrated view we are taking, cooperative conflict resolution consists of four general phases: (1) diagnosing the conflict, (2) identifying alter­native solutions, (3) evaluating and choosing a mutually acceptable solution, and (4) committing to the decision and implementing it. The left-hand part of the PSDM model (Figure 9.1) is concerned primarily with phases 1 and 2, with both problem solving and decision making taking place.

Diagnosis

Diagnosis is the first part of the problem-solving process. Perhaps the first step in diagnosis involves an important decision: determining what kind of conflict

you are in. A fundamental problem in conflict resolution in applied work is determining those few conflicts that really are not amenable to a constructive, integrative approach.

Determining What Kind of Conflict You Are In. Often, we are working to convince our students and those we train that most of the conflicts initially appearing to be unalterably competitive, zero-sum situations by their nature are in fact at worst mixed-motive. Many of us even take an initial, dogmatic stance with students that there are virtually no cases in which collaborative approaches are impossible, in an effort to break them of the common tendency to respond competitively (Bazerman and Neale, 1992). (At least the first author of this chapter knows he is guilty of this.) Yet we know from practical experience, as well as some of the research findings discussed earlier, that this is not the case. It would seem naive to deny that there are situations in which power-wielding, contentious tactics are warranted. Books such as Bazerman and Neale’s that alert readers to common biased misperceptions and urge them to look more closely are an important start. A set of empirically and theoretically justified principles, guidelines, or frameworks are badly needed to help identify those cases that really are immutably contentious.

This would serve at least two aims. It would be an indispensable tool for conflict resolution efforts both in the first person and by a third-party intervenor.

Identifying the Problem or Problems. The next step in diagnosis is to develop an understanding of what the conflict is about—whether in substantive interests, values, or other types of concerns—that lends itself to problem solving. This involves identifying each side’s real concerns (getting past initial positions or bargaining gambits), and developing a common understanding of the joint set of concerns of each party. Some questions that might be asked or investigated at this stage include:

What do I want?

Why do I want it?

What do I think are the various ways I can satisfy what I want?

What does the other want?

Why?

What are the various ways the other believes he or she can satisfy his or her wants?

Do we each fully understand one another’s needs, reasons, beliefs, and feelings?

Is the conflict based on a misunderstanding, or is it a real conflict of interests, beliefs, preferences, or values?

What is it about?

Finally, during the diagnosis phase, social perspective coordination is important. To arrive at a joint diagnosis, parties have to be willing and able to appreciate the other as a person, with concerns of his or her own, and coordinate these concerns with the party’s perspective so as to create the joint diagnosis.

Identifying Alternative Solutions

Once the parties have reached a joint diagnosis, the next step is to begin generating alternative solutions that may meet each party’s goals at least acceptably well. One of the most commonly mentioned approaches to doing this is brainstorming. Here, the emphasis is on generating as many creative ideas as possible, hoping to encourage parties to think of the kinds of mutually acceptable solutions that have eluded them.

A list of other techniques is suggested by Treffinger, Isaksen, and Dorval (1994). For example, they recommend “idea checklists,” lists of idea-stimulating questions such as, “What might you do instead?” or “What might be changed or used in a different way?” (p. 43). They also recommend using metaphors or analogies to stimulate creativity, and blending active strategies (like brain­storming) with reflective strategies (such as built-in down time, for thinking things over).

In our earlier discussion of decision making, we emphasized research concerned with decision making under conditions of risk. Risk taking is impor­tant in this context in at least two ways. The research we have reported focused on the willingness to hold to a position and risk impasse—a risky decision that works against cooperative conflict resolution. But there are other kinds of risks where such a course of action is desirable. For example, offering a concession (or an apology!) can feel like a risk if you are not sure it will be reciprocated. In building trust where it is lacking between parties in conflict, it is often necessary to get one of the parties to take a risk and demonstrate trust in order to persuade the other party to begin trusting.

Social perspective coordination is important here as well. To create viable solutions that meet each party’s concerns, it is helpful—if not essential—for parties to be able to grasp and appreciate the importance of the other’s perspective and choose to engage in the search for solutions that satisfy the other’s concerns.

Evaluating and Choosing

Once a set of possible alternative solutions has been identified, the next task is to evaluate the various options and choose among them.

There are also, at this stage, group decisions to be made, primarily as to which option is chosen. Several of the behavioral decision-making findings are important here, largely as things that negotiators as well as mediators and other third parties should look out for. Integrative solutions, for example, are more likely if power is relatively equal, and they tend to be driven by the low-power party if it is not (Mannix and Neale, 1993). There is a tendency to egocentric interpretations of fairness (Thompson and Loewenstein, 1992), which can add a sense of moral justification, and thus intractability, to a party’s sense of need. Also, people are less interested in doing better than the other (a competitive goal) when the relationship is personal and when it is positive (Loewenstein, Thompson, and Bazerman, 1989). Again, procedures such as that of Janis and Mann (1977) may be helpful.

Committing to a Choice

Finally, once a mutually agreeable solution has been found, the decision must be made to enter into agreement. Trust and the attendant risks are important factors. It is critical that parties be willing to put mutual satisfaction before the goal of “doing better than the other.” Social perspective coordination is impor­tant again, and here the issue of choosing to act on the social understanding gained is crucial; it is not enough just to understand—understanding must be translated into willingness to act. Among the key factors suggested by our work with elderly women (Weitzman and Weitzman, 2000) for encouraging this trans­lation are beliefs that the agreement will really work and be abided by and that the costs, emotional and otherwise, will not be too high.