Collaborative Problem Solving

Handbook

Carrie W. Bennett
Learning Through Difference LLC
[email protected]
(720) 299-0746
1
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................ 2

Norms of Collaboration ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Collaborative Problem Solving Cycle ...................................................................................................................... 4
Rules for Decision-Making: Benefits, Disadvantages, and Effects ..................................................................... 6
Reaching a Decision By Consensus: ........................................................................................................................ 7
Diamond of Participatory Decision ......................................................................................................................... 9
Communication Skills for Collaboration .............................................................................................................. 10
Inquiry and Advocacy ................................................................................................................................................ 11
Norms for Dealing with Conflict: .......................................................................................................................... 12
Recommended Reading ............................................................................................................................................ 12
Quotes to ponder… ................................................................................................................................................. 13
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................................... 15

2
 Norms of Collaboration

1. Pausing
Pausing before responding or asking a question allows time for thinking and enhances dialogue,
discussion, and decision-making.

2. Paraphrasing
Using a paraphrase starter that is comfortable for you – “So…” or “As you are…” or “You’re
thinking…” – and following the starter with an efficient paraphrase assists members of the group in
hearing and understanding one another as they converse and make decisions.

3. Posing Questions
Two intentions of posing questions are to explore and to specify thinking. Questions may be posed to
explore perceptions, assumptions, and interpretations, and to invite others to inquire into their
thinking. For example, “What might be some conjectures you are exploring?” Use focusing questions
such as, “Which students, specifically?” or “What might be an example of that?” to increase the clarity
and precision of group members’ thinking. Inquire into others’ ideas before advocating one’s own.

4. Putting Ideas on the Table

Ideas are the heart of meaningful dialogue and discussion. Label the intention of your comments. For
example: “Here is one idea…” or “One thought I have is…” or “Here is a possible approach…” or
“Another consideration might be…”.

5. Providing Data
Providing data, both qualitative and quantitative, in a variety of forms supports group members in
constructing shared understanding from their work. Data have no meaning beyond that which we
make of them; shared meaning develops from collaboratively exploring, analyzing, and interpreting
data.

6. Paying Attention to Self and Others

Meaningful dialogue and discussion are facilitated when each group member is conscious of self and
of others, and is aware of what (s)he is saying and how it is said as well as how others are responding.
This includes paying attention to learning styles when planning, facilitating, and participating in group
meetings and conversations.

7. Presuming Positive Intentions

Assuming that others’ intentions are positive promotes and facilitates meaningful dialogue and
discussion, and prevents unintentional put-downs. Using positive intentions in speech is one
manifestation of this norm.

Ó Center for Adaptive Schools www.adaptiveschools.com

3
 Collaborative Problem Solving Cycle
The team will address each issue brought to the table using the process outlined below. Depending on the number
of issues, this may not always follow a perfectly linear order. In some cases, multiple issues will be taken through
the first three phases to allow for taskforces to convene.

In addition, the straw design phase may need multiple iterations before the group is able to reach agreement.
During these iterations, it is important to look back to the interests and options as a source of ideas.

1. Story
Explain the issue, the
problem to be solved,
from diverse
perspectives.
6. Agreement 2. Interests
Implementation Identify concerns,
Agree upon a solution. needs, or desires
Implement agreement, underlying an issue.
monitor impact.

5. Straw 3. Options
Design Brainstorm ideas to
meet as many
*Draft informal interests as possible.
proposals (from the
options) that meet as
many interests as
possible and evaluate 4. Criteria
them. Qualities of a good
solution. In addition
to meeting interests,
what will you look for
in a solution?

* The team (or small taskforces) work collectively to draft initial proposals for the larger group to
review. In this phase, taskforce works creatively solve the problem in a way that meets as many
interests as possible.

4
Phases of Collaborative Problem Solving in Detail:

Explained Central Questions Key Skills

Share history and content of the What? • Seek out and honor different
issue, the problem to be solved. perceptions.
What happened?
• Describe without blame.
Story

This includes background When? • Clarify and seek understanding.

information, multiple Who is involved? • Record for group memory.
perspectives and diverse
understanding of the issue. How does this affect people?
Identify concerns, needs, and Why? • Separate interests (underlying
desires underlying an issue. needs and motivations) from
What’s most important to us in
Interest

solving this issue? options (solutions).

Could be one person’s or mutual • Record and note mutual
interests. interests.

Brainstorm ideas to meet as How? • Avoid judgment and screening

many interests as possible. of ideas. Do not discuss.
What are all the ways we might
• Aim for quantity.
Options

solve this problem (or aspects of

Don’t fall in love with (or • Imagine creative opportunities.
it)?
dismiss) any one idea at this • Build off of one another’s’
phase. ideas.
• Record for group memory.
Identify qualities of a solution. In addition to our interests, what • Clarify the meaning of each
Criteria & Evaluation

else is important to us in this criteria.

What will you look for in an end decision? • Begin to evaluate the options
solution? against the interests and
criteria.
What will help you narrow the • Amend, combine, eliminate or
options for value and develop new options.
appropriateness?

Draft proposals that meet the Could this work? • Listen, pay attention, and
identified criteria and as many encourage participation.
What do we like? How could it
Straw Design

interests as possible.
be improved? • Treat differences as strengths.
• Avoid arguing blindly. Offer
Recognize limitations and Does this meet our criteria and as constructive feedback to
shortcomings. many interests as possible? improve.
What else could we add or take • Seek mutual gains and work
Build on the best available away to improve on the idea? towards consensus.
options.
Document the end agreement Who, what, when, where, etc. • Write down the specifics of the
(when the group agrees the documented in clear language. agreement and actions needed
solution is as good as it can be
Agreement

How will we know if it’s from participants.

given current realities).
working?
Make a plan to implement and When can we convene again to
monitor the impact of the reevaluate and revise if
decision. necessary?

5
Rules for Decision-Making: Benefits, Disadvantages, and Effects

Person-in-Charge Decides Without Group Discussion

This rule gets group members in the habit of doing what they’re
told. At meetings, they mostly listen passively to the person
talking.

This rule is useful when a decision needs to be made quickly,

when the person in charge has the necessary expertise and
authority to make the decision alone.

Person-in-Charge Decides AFTER group Discussion

The person in charge solicits feedback but remains control as the
final decision-maker. Participants see the decision-maker as the
person who needs to be convinced. Participants direct comments
to the person in charge.

This rule is useful when there is some, but not a lot of time to
make a decision. It can help inform the person-in-charge and may
build some buy-in from the group members. Participants may feel
some sense of control. They may also feel frustrated if they have
made a suggestion that is not ultimately reflected in the decision.
Majority Vote
With this rule, the goal is to obtain 51% agreement. Participants
work to convince one another, it is essentially a battle for the
undecided center. Once a majority has been established, the
opinions of the minority can be disregarded.

This rule is a familiar procedure that is applied to many situations.

It gives people and some opportunity to be heard although they
may or may not listen deeply to one another. Can be polarizing.
Consensus (or Unanimous Agreement)
The group works to build understanding and a mutually agreeable
solution. Depending on the group, every member (or nearly every
member) must be able to support a decision. Since everyone has
some power to “block” a decision, each participant can expect his
or her perspective to be taken into account. This puts pressure on
Neutral members to work towards mutual understanding. This rule
Party creates shared ownership and responsibility for solutions and
implementation.

This rule works when participants are mutually interdependent

and where minority views matter for the wellbeing of the whole.
It can take longer and is more difficult than the other rules. A
neutral party can help facilitate for efficiency and fairness.

Adapted from Sam Kaner’s Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making, 2007

6
 Reaching a Decision By Consensus:
Susan Sparks Many, Organizing for Success: Negotiation Handbook

Consensus Means:
• All participants contribute resources including time, ideas, and information and encourage use of
one another’s resources and opinions.
• The team has considered a variety of perspectives and views these differences as helpful rather
than as a hindrance.
• Everyone has a shared understanding of the issue these from multiple perspectives.
• Everyone has a chance to describe the way the issue impacts him/her.
• In a potential solution, those who disagree propose acceptable modifications with which they
would agree. Those who disagree can ask the group for help in making possible modifications.
• Those who continue to disagree see the will of the group and indicate that they are willing to go
along for a try for a prescribed period of time. Consider balanced ways to monitor the impact of
the decision if implemented and revise the solution later using this data.
• All share in the final decision and recommendation. The group can agree that the solution
is the result of their best, creative problem solving even if the end result is still imperfect.

Values and Behaviors For Reaching Consensus

• We balance power and create shared ownership by providing time and opportunity for
investigation, reflection and dialogue
• We value clarity and explicit communication
• We use interactive processes to support our effectiveness.
• We share how to arrive at decisions with the entire staff and describe when and how we will
make decisions.

Consensus Doesn’t Mean:

• Everyone thinks the end idea is perfect.
• Simply giving in. Reservations and concerns need to be voiced so the group can consider
creative alternatives.

7
Tools for “temperature checks” for consensus around idea- “Testing the Will of the Group”

YES SO-SO NO
Although this may not be my I have some reservations or I’m struggling. I need to talk
first choice I support it. This would like more discussion about this more before I can
solution meets our criteria and and/or minor adjustments. I consider supporting it.
satisfies as many interests as will not block this decision if
possible at this time. it’s the will of the group.

Possible “Thresholds” for Consensus Based Decision-Making

1. Unanimous agreement- 100% of the team says “yes” (green).

2. Agreement- The vast majority of the group is in support. A small portion (1-3 members) feel
“so-so” (yellow) about the solution but are willing to support the will of the group.
3. Sufficient Agreement- May vary by group. Must be defined before seeking agreement on
substantive issues. Possible models include:
a. 85% or more of the group supports the idea. 15% of the group may feel “so-so” (yellow)
or oppose (red) the solution. The group cannot come up with any acceptable
modifications to improve the solution.
b. 66% or more of the group supports the idea. 33% of the group may feel “so-so” (yellow)
or oppose (red) the solution. The group cannot come up with any acceptable
modifications to improve the solution.
c. A smaller, representative committee (representatives identified before the need arises)
convenes to continue to work the issue. If this group can reach consensus, the larger
group agrees to support the will of the small committee.

8
 Diamond of Participatory Decision-Making: AKA, Why making decisions in a
group is so darn difficult.

Sam Kaner, Lenny Lind, Catherine Toldi, Sarah Fisk and Duane Berger.
The Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making, 2011

Phase Characteristics Needs

People propose “obvious” solutions to Test for agreement. If the solution
obvious problems. Tone of the conversation actually does work for everyone, great!
Business
is often friendly but superficial. Some If not, probe to understand the situation
As Usual
needs may be overlooked in quick more deeply and explore other options.
solutions.
Curiosity and discovery. Deep listening and suspended judgment.
Divergent
Exploration of perspectives and To really understand a topic, people have
Zone
experiences. to be able to speak freely and feel heard.
Competing frames of reference. Individuals Patience, perseverance, tolerance. Stay
Groan have to wrestle with foreign concepts. open to different perspectives and
Zone Frustration, confusion, anxiety, and creative solutions. The wisdom to solve
exasperation, are common. the problem will emerge from the group!
People understand each other and find Creativity and inclusive thinking help the
inclusive alternatives. Ideas can be group early on. As the team gets closer
Convergent
synthesized and refined. The team feels a to a decision point, it will need increasing
Zone
shared sense of imagination, focus, clarity.
eagerness, and clarity.
Team experiences high levels of suspense, Clear decision-making rules.
Closure
alertness, satisfaction, and completion.

9
 Communication Skills for Collaboration

“Human conversation is the most ancient and easiest way to cultivate the conditions for change –
personal change, community, and organizational change.” Margaret Wheatley (2002)

Listening
What does an effective listener say and do?

Paraphrasing
From the Greek para, (beyond) + phrazein, (to tell) = to tell beyond.

Webster: A rewording of the thought or meaning expressed in

something that has been said or written.

Principles of Paraphrasing
• Attend fully.
• Listen with the intention to understand.
• Capture the essence of the message.
• Reflect the essence of voice, tone, and gestures.
• Make the paraphrase shorter than the original statement.
• Paraphrase before asking a question.
• Use the pronoun “you,” instead of “I.”

Listen for Their Yes

• In conflict, people tend to push hard against the things they don’t want which can quickly
escalate a conflict. They are likely to use “loaded language” which will be hard for others to hear
without getting defensive or combative.
• When this happens, unload the loaded language with a calm paraphrase.
• In al of the bluster and NO, find what the person is saying YES to. What’s really important to
this person that the group needs to honor?

Adapted from: Garmston & Wellman. (1999). The Adaptive School: A Sourcebook for Developing
Collaborative Groups (www.adaptiveschools.com)

10
 Inquiry and Advocacy

Inquiry Advocacy
Inquire into others’ ideas, listen, request more Verbal statement for a cause or position,
information. promote

The Structure of Inquiry The Structure of Advocacy

- Ask others to make their thinking visible - Make your thinking and reasoning
- Use non aggressive language and visible
approachable voice - State your assumptions
- Use pattern of pause, paraphrase, pause - Describe your reasoning
and probe - Describe your feelings
- Use exploratory language - Distinguish data from interpretation
- Inquire about values, beliefs, - Reveal your perspective
assumptions - Frame the wider context that surrounds
- Explain your reason for inquiring the issue
- Invite introspection - Give concrete examples

Graceful transitions from Inquiry into Advocacy

- Here is a related thought…
- I hold it another way…
- Hmmm, from another perspective…
- An additional idea might be… An assumption I am exploring is…

Adapted from Garmston, R. & Wellman, B. The Adaptive School: A Sourcebook for Developing
Collaborative Groups, Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc. Norwood, MA. 2009.
11
 Norms for Dealing with Conflict:

• Breathe deeply. Conflict is a natural outcome of working together.

• Stay focused on one issue at a time.
• One person speaks at a time. Don’t interrupt. Create space for understanding.
• Listen to understand. Use paraphrasing, pausing, and probing. Take time to really hear (and
demonstrate your understanding of) the other side’s perspective before stating your own.
• All voices are respected and heard. Remember that each person’s perspective is that person’s
truth.
• Notice your own behaviors of advocating or inquiring.
• Pay attention to and listen for interests. Ask, “What’s the interest behind this idea?” to help
uncover potential common ground. Listen for a person’s “yes” behind their no.
• Be hard on problems but easy on the people. Focus on issues, not personalities.
• Call for a time-out if needed. Don’t continue the conversation at the break.
• Maintain norms of confidentiality. What is said in the room stays in the room.
• Look for common ground and possible areas of agreement.

Recommended Reading

1. Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision Making, Sam Kaner

2. Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton

12
 Quotes to ponder…

“In one of our concert grand pianos, 243 taut strings exert a pull of 40,000 pounds on an iron frame. It is
proof that out of great tension may come great harmony.” -- Theodore E. Steinway

“Conflict isn't negative, it just is.” -- Thomas Crum

“Under normal conditions, most people tend to see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear,
and do what they want to do; in conflicts, their positions become even more rigid and fixed.” – Marc
Robert

“Embracing conflict can become a joy when we know that irritation and frustration can lead to growth
and fascination.” -- Thomas Crum

“It is hard to change our point of view in a conflict. Most often, it is because we are not nearly as
interested in resolving the conflict and possibly creating a new ‘pearl’ as we are in being right.” --
Thomas Crum

“In a conflict, being willing to change allows you to move from a point of view to a viewing point – a
higher, more expansive place, from which you can see both sides.” -- Thomas Crum

“Conflict is inevitable, but combat is optional.” -- Max Lucade

“Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It instigates to invention. It
shocks us out of sheep like passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving.” – John Dewey

“You can't shake hands with a clenched fist.” -- Indira Gandhi

“Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict --
alternatives to passive or aggressive responses, alternatives to violence.” -- Dorothy Thompson

“It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them.” -- Pierre Beaumarchais

“Beautiful light is born of darkness, so the faith that springs from conflict is often the strongest and the
best.” -- R. Turnbull

“Conflict can be seen as a gift of energy, in which neither side loses and a new dance is created.” --
Thomas Crum

“Through conflict we get to unity.” -- Dean Tjosvold

“Our lives are not dependent on whether or not we have conflict. It is what we do with conflict that
makes the difference.” -- Thomas Crum

Susan Sparks Many, Organizing for Success: Negotiation Handbook

13
To be of use

The people I love the best

jump into work head first
without dallying in the shallows
and swim off with sure strokes almost out of sight.
They seem to become natives of that element,
the black sleek heads of seals
bouncing like half-submerged balls.

I love people who harness themselves, an ox to a heavy cart,

who pull like water buffalo, with massive patience,
who strain in the mud and the muck to move things forward,
who do what has to be done, again and again.

I want to be with people who submerge

in the task, who go into the fields to harvest
and work in a row and pass the bags along,
who are not parlor generals and field deserters
but move in a common rhythm
when the food must come in or the fire be put out.

The work of the world is common as mud.

Botched, it smears the hands, crumbles to dust.
But the thing worth doing well done
has a shape that satisfies, clean and evident.
Greek amphoras for wine or oil,
Hopi vases that held corn, are put in museums
but you know they were made to be used.
The pitcher cries for water to carry
and a person for work that is real.

Marge Piercy from Circles on the Water

14
 Acknowledgements

I am indebted to the mentors and colleagues who have established and refined best practices for
collaborative problem solving. Beyond their contributions to the best practices in this handbook, they
have mentored and guided me in my own journey to implement them and continue to innovate for
improvement.

Thanks to Annie Bentz, Anita Engles, Carrie Hetzel, and Jon Townsend for giving me a sound
foundation in listening, reframing, and gently challenging parties to keep working. Thank you to Dean
Michael Moffitt and Professors Jennifer Reynolds and Elizabeth Tippett of the University of Oregon
School of Law.

Finally, thanks to Susan Sparks Many for setting me on this path as an eager participant in negotiations
and then welcoming me to it as a colleague and thought partner in facilitation.

15