After reflective listening (in which I found out a lot of other things) I learned that my husband also had a problem. He didn’t like listening to me while I worked out bowings and fingerings for difficult sections in a piece of music. So he tried to drown out those sounds when I practice.
Our brainstorming produced several alternative solutions, including:
I practice directly after school before he comes home.
We install soundproofing in my practice room at home.
I practice on my free period in school (Sonje is a public school teacher).
We buy headphones for his stereo
Et cetera.
Of the twelve solutions, eleven were not feasible for one reason or another. We purchased a set of headphones and Woody can crank up the volume on his stereo as loudly as he wants with no inconvenience to me or our neighbors.
Of course, this wasn’t textbook-smooth in the real-life situation. A few roadblocks slipped in and my reflective listening left something to be desired. But by the frequent use of the skills of the communication skills course we are becoming more aware of each other at the feeling level and are better at meeting each other’s needs. Our relationship has improved and we both feel more fulfilled.
Third-Party Problem Solving
One person who has collaborative problem-solving abilities can act as a facilitator to other people who are struggling with an interpersonal conflict of needs.
A high school teacher described his third-party role in problem solving:
Student A and student B were fighting in the corridor. I separated them and took them to my room. After I listened to them for a while, they calmed down. This was the situation they described. As the end of the marking period approached, the students’ industrial arts projects were due. Both students were involved with complicated projects, each requiring the use of a special clamp. The shop was equipped with only one of these clamps, and, since both students were aware of this, each had decided he would use it first. Their anxiety over not being able to complete the project resulted in the fight in the hall.
At my suggestion, the two boys decided to try using the collaborative problem-solving method. The problem was that each boy needed to complete his project before the end of the term which was close at hand.
Five possible solutions were generated by the brainstorming:
When we evaluated these options, solutions 1 and 2 were impractical because there wasn’t enough time remaining in the term to complete one project and then the other. Number 3 was also ruled out for lack of time (and because neither student liked that alternative). Solution 4 was the most popular. Unfortunately, the industrial arts instructor told us that the particular clamp had to be ordered from an out-of-town supplier and couldn’t be received in time to help the boys. Solution 5 was all that was left. By analyzing the steps involved in the individual projects, we realized that student A needed the clamp in the early stages of his project and student B would not need it until one of his final steps. With cooperation and coordination the two would be able to successfully complete their projects without undue delay to either.
The students planned a specific schedule. Student A completed his use of the clamp while student B worked on the parts of his project which did not require the clamp. A then turned the the clamp over to B, and both completed their projects on time.
Some days later we evaluated the solution. Each had been able to complete his project on time and of such quality as to receive high grades and present the projects as gifts to their families. They were thoroughly satisfied with the results of their problem solving.
HANDLING THE CRUCIAL
PRELIMINARIES
Deal with strong feelings before problem solving. Emotions are often strong when there is a problem between people. If the other has strong feelings, or if both of you do, use the conflict resolution method to reduce the emotional stress. If you are the only one with strong feelings, before you begin problem solving find a way to “dump your bucket without filling the other person’s bucket.” Failure to first deal with the emotion is one of the most common barriers to successful use of this method.
Be sure the right people are involved in the problem-solving session. The people who should be present are (1) those who are affected by the outcome, and (sometimes) (2) those who have the needed data.
Negotiate a time and place in which to do the problem solving. Make sure the location is suitable. I like privacy so I can let my hair down, the TV and radio off, a way to intercept incoming telephone calls, and so on. Furthermore, I usually ask for one-half to three-quarters of an hour. I rarely need that much time, but it is important to complete the process in one sitting for all but the most complicated problems. Then, too, you never know when you will run into a snag that will take longer than anticipated to work out.
If someone says, “What do you want to see me about?” I may simply say, “Let’s wait until we can have more time to discuss it.” This may raise the other’s tension level, but that could be better than getting into difficult issues in an inopportune time and place. You may have to use the conflict resolution method if you continue to avoid mentioning the topic. On the other hand, there will be times when it is appropriate to disclose what you want to discuss.
The next preliminary is to write out the assertion message with which you will start out the problem-solving session. Yes, write it out. It is very important for you to be very clear about your own needs and able to state them accurately and nonjudgmentally. By now, you may think you are a seasoned pro at writing assertion messages. Nontheless, there is a high probability that the problem-solving session will be more productive if you are prepared with a well-worded message that you have committed to writing (usually for your eyes only).
When you begin the problem-solving session, explain the method you would like to use and why you would like to use it. I find two compelling reasons for using the method First, all the other options are so bad. It may be that the last time you and the other person interacted about conflicting needs, the result was disappointing to one or both of you and that one or both experienced anger, resentment, frustration, or “all of the above.” The second major reason for my wanting to use the method is that both of us will get our needs met.
When you spell out the problem-solving process and your reasons for wanting to use it, you may well encounter strong resistance. (The resistance is usually far stronger if you try to lead the other through the process without advance notice.) The other person may suspect that you are trying to gain an upper hand by changing the rules. She may feel uneasy that you know how to use this process and she doesn’t. And she may be very skeptical that both of you can get your needs met. She may think that this is a contradiction in terms.
If the other person is resistant, become a listener to her resistance energy. You will probably be tempted to explain or even to persuade. These tend to be roadblocks and using them will probably only stiffen the resistance. Reflective listening, however, usually enables the other to express herself, reduce her stress, develop more trust, and ultimately begin the problem-solving process. This is not a manipulative technique. (“OK, she’s being resistant so I’ll use listening on her.”) It is an honest attempt to understand the other person’s emotions while allowing her to vent her “negative” feelings. As we saw earlier, when a person feels understood, she feels better. If my goal is to work cooperatively with someone toward a common goal, we need to have all our energies directed as positively as possible toward that goal. Reflective listening to resistance about this way of resolving the needs, then, is the final step of preparation, though this may have to be followed by your reasons for wanting to use this method. Sometimes there is no resistance and this phase of preparation is not required.
WHAT DO I DO WHEN
COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM
SOLVING DOESN’T WORK?
People taught by my associates and myself tell us that they have a high success rate with these skills. Whe
n the process doesn’t work well for them, they have usually fallen into one of the common traps in this process, or one of the parties has a hidden agenda, or the process needs to be recycled—or they are using the skill in too difficult a situation for their level of competence.
Avoid the Common Traps
in the Process
People commonly fall into one or more of the following five traps when doing collaborative problem solving.
Not handling the emotions first. If emotions are high, they need to be brought into normal range through the use of the conflict resolution method before the problem-solving process begins. Many businessmen have told us that they have used this six-step process before taking the course. Most of them said it worked fairly well for them sometimes, but was ineffective on other occasions. Most of the times when it didn’t work were when strong emotions were involved but were ignored. A central teaching of this program is the “Primacy of the emotions.” When feelings are strong they must be addressed first—before anything else is done.
Not defining the problem properly. Many people do not listen long enough, acceptingly enough, or effectively enough to understand the other person’s need. And they may not have specified their own need accurately enough through a well-stated three-part assertion message.
Sometimes people try to use this method when no tangible needs are involved—only values issues. This process is not intended for use in values conflicts.
Evaluating or clarifying during brainstorming. The majority of people we have taught are strongly tempted to interrupt the brainstorming step with evaluations, clarifications, comments, giving examples, and so on. This hinders and may ultimately kill effective brainstorming. Since the quality of your solution hinges so largely on the effectiveness of your brainstorming, it is important to avoid falling into this trap. If the other begins to evaluate or digress in this step, be quick, yet gentle and firm, in bringing her back to the process. If your intervention is experienced as a put-down, that in itself may disrupt the brainstorming.
Not working out the nitty-gritty details. Once harmony has been established in the relationship and a mutually agreeable solution is discovered, many people end the problem-solving process. It seems to some people that it signals a lack of trust to work out the details of implementation at this time.
Other people become impatient. They are not used to spending so much time working out problems with other people. So they do not spell out the specific next steps to be taken; the solution does not get implemented and they are apt to say, “That process just doesn’t work.”
Not following up to see that the action steps are carried out. Just because you arrived at a harmonious agreement doesn’t mean it will be put into practice. Many people have crowded schedules, numerous priorities, and other complications that may interfere with their efforts on behalf of your common plan. Lack of follow-through on the other person’s part doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t care about you or about the agreed-upon solution. It can be important, therefore, to set and use realistic checkpoints to evaluate the progress you are making in the resolution of your joint problem.
Smoke Out Hidden Agendas
Sometimes when people are not making adequate progress in the problem-solving process it is due to an underlying problem that has not been brought into the open. This problem constitutes a large emotional barrier between the two people. When this seems to be the case, you may wish to offer a door opener like, “Seems like something is hanging us up. Is there something else in our relationship that we should talk about first?” Sometimes the other person will say, “No, there’s nothing wrong”—and then will gradually spell out the hidden barrier.
Recycle the Process
Sometimes when you cannot reach consensus on a solution it is because one or two steps of the process need to be done more effectively. The problem usually becomes evident at Step 3 (selecting the solution). It is often helpful to try again. Assert your needs clearly and succinctly. Listen long and hard until you have discovered the other’s need. Then, with the joint problem clearly in mind brainstorm freely without evaluation, clarification, explanation, or digression. Many times a mutually beneficial solution is reached on the second time through the process.
APPLICATIONS
OF COLLABORATIVE
PROBLEM-SOLVING Goal Setting
When goals are being established, the collaborative problem-solving process can often be used effectively. For example, Red decided that he and his wife Eilene should place $1,000 per year in a long-term savings account. Their income was limited, however, and that goal seemed to conflict with Eilene’s objective of quitting her job and returning to graduate school. Previously, Red and Eilene would have fought about the issue. He would ultimately have won and she would have sulked. That’s the pattern they had developed over the years. This time, however, they both stated their needs, brainstormed solutions, and went through the remainder of the collaborative problem-solving process. They decided not to save at all for three years while she went to school and to save $1,700 per year for the first six years after she began working again. Each was pleased because the needs of both would be met.
A high school teacher wanted to involve her students in planning their next unit of study. Her primary need was to adequately cover the material in the unit so students would be able to pass the statewide test (Regents’ Examination) at the end of the year. The students shared that need but they had other concerns. They placed more emphasis on one part of the unit which was applicable to them, wanted fewer lectures, and desired a way of sorting out and discussing the critical issues—and no tests on Fridays (when many of the other teachers gave tests). The class listed the top-priority items for them and selected a committee of five to work with the teacher in planning the who-will-do-what-by-when steps and to assist in implementation. At the end of the unit, the teacher and most of the students were generally pleased with the results, but they learned some things that could be improved the next time around. Moreover, the class did exceptionally well on the statewide tests.
Harlow was a manager in a plant that pays lip service to a system of managing called Management by Objectives (MBO). One of the basic ideas of MBO is that the boss and his subordinate are to collaborate in determining the objectives which the employee will be accountable for achieving in the coming year and by which he will be evaluated at the end of the year. Harlow said, “Up until now, the whole thing has been a farce because none of us had been taught the interpersonal skills to make the system work.”
After he and his boss had taken a course in management communication skills, they discussed the accomplishments and problems of the past year and then began to set goals for the coming year. Harlow’s boss briefly outlined the company’s objectives for the year, the division’s objectives, and his own objectives to help the division and company meet their objectives. The boss’s needs were to meet his objectives, and in order to do that, Harlow would have to find a way of contributing to those goals.
Then Harlow was asked what he most wanted to achieve in the coming year. Once his needs were clear, Harlow and his boss combined their needs into one statement, brainstormed ways of meeting both sets of needs, and developed a set of mutually acceptable goals for the coming year. The action plans were developed at a later meeting. According to Harlow, “MBO never made any sense before. Now I know what my boss and division wants and needs and why. And we’ve found a way to use my skills and harness my interests better than ever. If the periodic review sessions we’ve scheduled go this well, I think I should get the results the company needs and yet meet many of my own needs, too.”
In a One-to-One
“Helping Relationship”
When another person has a strong need, listening skills are appropriate. Sometimes, however, after listening reflectively through the presenting problem to the real problem, the process may become stalemated because the person with the need lacks skill in problem solving and decision making. If y
ou think you have listened long enough to the other to understand her core issue, it may be desirable to explain the problem-solving model to her and ask if she would like to try it in her situation. If she accepts, your role is to help her proceed step by step through the process. Since this is not collaborative problem solving, only her need is stated in Step 1. In Step 2, your job is to keep her brainstorming and not evaluating or explaining her solutions. (Sometimes it is appropriate for you to contribute some—not most!—of the possible solutions in Step 3.) The selection of the best possible alternative is hers alone to decide, though you may ask her to anticipate the possible consequences of choosing each of the most desirable possibilities. The remaining steps of the process are handled in a similar manner. In this way you enable the other person to solve her own problems and at the same time to learn a problem-solving process that can help her handle future problems.
Other Applications
This process has many other applications. I will mention two more. It has been successfully used in setting rules and policies. Whether they are spoken or unspoken, rules are a part of every relationship, family, and organization. It is desirable for the people affected by rules or policies to participate in determining them. In large groups this may have to be done by representatives. At the beginning of the year some classroom teachers work with the class in mutually setting the rules for their behavior during the year using the collaborative problem-solving method. As the need for new rules arises during the year, the group adds them. When some rules prove unnecessary, they are dropped by group action. When the “principle of participation” is employed in the setting of rules, they tend to make more sense to people and to be observed with greater regularity.
Someone once said that life is a procession of problems. This six-step problem-solving process can also be used by a single individual for the various personal problems in her life that could benefit from a systematic approach.
People Skills_How to Assert Yourself, Listen to Others, and Resolve Conflicts Page 33
