The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)
Page 34
And make it a truly humane way
As language users, each of us is different
But in one role very much alike we can be:
That of acting as peaceful meaning makers
And believing a kinder world there will be
CHAPTER NINE
THE PSDM MODEL Integrating Problem Solving and Decision Making in Conflict Resolution
Eben A. Weitzman
Patricia Flynn Weitzman
One way to think about what people do when they resolve conflict is that they solve a problem together. Another way to think about it is that they make a decision—again, together. Sometimes problem solving and decision making are treated as synonymous. For convenience, we distinguish between the two in order to make clearer the ways in which they complement each other, even though the processes are intermingled in the course of conflict resolution. In the “Problem Solving” section of this chapter, we discuss diagnosis of the conflict and also the development of alternative possibilities for resolving a conflict. In “Decision Making,” we consider a range of the kinds of decisions people involved in resolving conflict have to make, both individually and together, including choice among the alternative possibilities and commitment to the choice that is made. When faced with the necessity for commitment and choice, the parties may decide that the alternatives are inadequate and reiterate the process of diagnosis and development of alternatives (problem solving); there may be repeated cycles of such reiteration before a conflict is resolved. This implies a cooperative conflict resolution process consisting 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. As we discuss in this chapter, this process is not strictly linear, and it will often be necessary to loop back through parts of it repeatedly.
It is thus possible to think about problem solving and decision making as components of a broader conflict resolution process. Research and practice over the past few decades have shown these ways of thinking about conflict to be profitable for both understanding conflict and developing constructive approaches to resolving it. We begin by suggesting a simple model of the interaction between problem-solving and decision-making processes in conflict resolution. This model introduces a framework and guide for the remainder of the chapter.
A SIMPLE MODEL
In figure 9.1, we suggest an integrated model of problem solving and decision making in conflict resolution. (For simplicity, we refer to it as the PSDM model.) When people are unable to resolve conflict constructively, they are in some way unable or unwilling to reach a resolution that is to all parties—at the least—acceptable. There are many potential sources of such stuckness. Their interests might appear to be (or actually be) incompatible; they might be too angry with one another to talk constructively; they might have fundamental differences in values about the subject of their conflict or about processes for resolving it; they may hold different versions of “the truth” about what has already happened, what will happen, or about any of the “facts” involved; they may have different views of, or desires for, the nature of their relationship, or they may have deep misunderstandings that are hard to sort out. (Because the word interests is often understood as a reference to the tangible outcomes people may be seeking, we use the term concerns to encompass not only interests but also values, emotional investments, views of reality, and so on.)
Figure 9.1 An Integrated Model of Problem Solving and Decision Making in Conflict Resolution
We could say, then, that there is a complex puzzle, or problem, to be solved: putting together the various interests, values, preferences, realities, emotional investments, and so on, of the parties involved and finding a solution that accounts for these at least well enough. In that sense, problem solving needs to take place. Along the way, there are many decisions to be made, both individually and together (see figure 9.1). The private decisions include prioritizing concerns, evaluating proposals, figuring out whether to offer or seek more, and deciding whether to trust, to name a few. Decisions to be made together may concern processes to be used, whether and when to get help from a third party, choices from among the options generated during problem solving, and whether to enter into an agreement. Some of these decisions are made during the course of problem solving and some after the problem-solving process has yielded a set of alternatives to consider. One possible decision to be made afterward is whether the options generated are adequate or inadequate. If inadequate, the parties must return to another round of problem solving. So, the process may be iterative, necessitating repeated return to the problem-solving stage until the parties decide to agree.
The rest of this chapter aims to move us through this outlined process. To do so, we must understand the parts of the process, and how they work.
Note that in what follows, the lists of decisions to be made are intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
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:
Diagnosing the conflict (figuring out what the cause of the stuckness is, or identifying the problem)
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. Problem-solving 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. We can fight it out, or work it out. If we’re going to work it out, let’s figure out what that would take.” (See chapters 1 and 30 in this Handbook for further discussion of reframing a conflict as a mutual problem to be solved cooperatively.)
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 problem-solving approaches, though it may not always be realistically possible (more on this later). Pruitt and Kim (2004) review a variety of forms for finding such solutions:
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 fourth 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). What makes this bridging solution different from the price-raising, expanding-the-pie example is that it makes use of a new option (redesign) that addresses the various underlying interests on both sides of the table in an integrative way.
A key component, not only to the approach Pruitt and Kim described, 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. 73), in child custody cases. They found overwhelmingly that disputants working with mediators using PSS more frequently reached settlement and were more satisfied with their agreements. They also found that the PSS settlements tended to be more durable, produce long-term outcomes of higher quality, leave disputants with more favorable attitudes toward the mediation, and be more likely to have a lasting positive impact on the relationship between parties. It is also important to note that there were some consistent exceptions: for example, when one party bargained in bad faith or was psychologically disturbed, PSS did not produce workable agreements.
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 that mediators applied pressure on disputants to reach agreement, the lower the rates were 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. Furthermore, 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, a
nd 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 about both 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 chapter 1, the “Initiating Cooperation and Competition” section.)
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.