Summary of Collaborative Problem Solving

Summary of “Collaborative Problem Solving” Presented by Ross W. Greene, Ph.D. (November 16, 2007 – Duluth, MN)

Jo Pelishek, Family Advocate for Wisconsin Family Ties

Dr. Greene begins with the belief that all kids will behave well, if they’re able to do so. “…If they can’t, we adults need to figure out what’s getting in the way, so we can help.” He explains “behavior” as the mental health equivalent of a fever and insists that if a child could do better, he/she would. It is the adult’s responsibility to discern what’s getting in his way.

Adult’s perspective of children’s behavior will determine their interventions. “Half-baked explanations lead to half-baked interventions.” This underscores, I think, the importance of good Functional Behavioral Assessments in the school setting.

Dr. Greene contrasted the ease with which we give extra reading help to students, to the lack of help given to students who have behavioral needs. He believes that misbehavior is not a motivational deficit, and therefore that rewards and punishments are ineffective. Rather he sees misbehavior as a type of learning disability. “The kid is delayed in the development of crucial cognitive skills – often including flexibility/adaptability, frustration tolerance, and problem-solving – or has significant difficulty applying these skills when they are most needed,” says Greene.

He goes on to define “Maladaptive Behavior,” including rages, as happening when the “cognitive demands being placed upon a person outstrip the person’s capacity to respond adaptively.” In other words, not being able to handle what just got ‘thrown’ at you. From minor to harmful or outrageous behaviors, Greene believes, the root cause is the same – the inability to behave differently in the situation. His mantra is that underneath every difficult behavior lies an unsolved problem or a delayed skill. The problem must be solved or the skill taught to effect behavioral change. Academic skills are not expected to change quickly – time and patience must also be taken with behavioral skills. Focus shifts when using Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) as opposed to behavior modification or other approaches. Evaluations are based on cognition, not on behavior. Greene suggests that we try to determine what the child is thinking that we wish he wasn’t, and what is he not thinking that we wish he was? What skills are lacking? The goal of intervention then is to teach the absent or lagging cognitive skills and solve problems, not to become better at demanding compliance by imposing our wills or attempting to create incentives for compliance.

Often the child can think of only one response when stressed or upset, and we need to teach other options. Greene asserts that if the child was able, and knew a better way to act in the moment, he would. Sometimes the child is too disorganized to solve a problem or see alternatives, so needs to be taught organizational skills. Even swearing, in the CPS model, is a language issue – a human bark, so to speak. When a child can’t access the “what I do when I’m frustrated” file, they will act out. When they say they don’t know what to do, it means that they don’t have experience or a ‘file’ for that. A response of “No!” means that the child is having difficulty “getting his brain wrapped around” what the adult wants him to do, as quickly as he wants him to do it. Again, new skills need to be taught.

Sometimes people are unable to separate their emotional response to the problem from the thinking skills needed to solve it. Primary skills needed would be to calm oneself in the midst of frustration and to think clearly. Chronic anxiety that impairs the capacity to problem solve might actually be the result of “chronic problems that have yet to be solved.” (I found this insightful as a parent of children with extremely high anxiety.) Irritability &/or anxiety diminish the ability to find solutions. Kids might function at a toddler age in their emotional responses, resorting to fight or flight. For children who don’t comprehend how their behavior affects others, Greene says their “feedback loop is broken.” They need to be taught how actions affect others.

Assessment tools recommended at this workshop were the Pathways Inventory, Situational Analysis and when appropriate, formal testing. The Pathways Inventory is better used as a discussion guide than a checklist of 1 challenges. The discussion should center on who this child is, and how he got to be like this. Situational Analysis looks at both triggers and lagging skills. According to Dr. Greene, every child has six or seven triggers, and children never ‘blow up’ without a reason or antecedent. In fact, he would argue that challenging behaviors are quite predictable. In assessing, all meaningless explanations should be taken out of the discussion according to Greene. Some of the “dead-end explanations” he listed were: “He has bipolar disorder.” “He has bad wiring.” “She’s adopted.” “He just wants attention, his own way, or control” (Greene says this is true of everyone!) “He’s manipulating us.” (Manipulation requires skills he doesn’t have. In fact, Greene suggested that if you know you’re being manipulated it’s an incompetent manipulation.) “He’s making bad choices.” (assumes he can make good ones.) It’s important to get rid of the “explanations” for challenging behaviors and to go back to identifying unsolved problems and the lack of skills. “If we’re not seeing the skills,” says Greene, “they don’t have them.”

We often expect people to be involved in their own rescue, which is like offering money to a drowning kid to make it back to shore, according to Greene. It won’t help. Rewards don’t work. And if kids haven’t benefited from natural consequences, he asserts it is unlikely imposed consequences will be effective in changing behavior.

Greene suggests three plans, the equivalent of the three baskets he refers to in his book, “The Explosive Child.” Plan A: Impose adult will (No, you must, you can’t, 1-2-3, I’m the boss) Plan B: Collaborative Problem Solving Plan C: Drop it (for now, at least)

Plan A, being authoritative, simply increases challenging behaviors in challenging children, and teaches regular ed kids that ‘might makes right’. It doesn’t work, according to Greene.

Plan B involves 1) pursuing unmet expectations; 2) identifying and teaching lagging cognitive skills; 3) durably and collaboratively solving problems; and 4) ultimately reducing the likelihood of challenging behaviors. Plan B teaches children, over time, the skills they need so they won’t always require help. Giving children the necessary skills is more productive than continually needing to intervene. This plan begins with empathy – acknowledging the problem – then moves to defining specifics of the problem. The final step is to invite the child to brainstorm with you in reaching solutions. (i.e. “Let’s think about ways we could work that out” or “I wonder if there’s a way…”) After the child has opportunity to have input, the adult might add to their options. (i.e. “I’ve got some ideas, do you want to hear them?”)

Plan C, dropping the issue “for now,” is an option that allows you to keep focus on one or a few problems rather than feeling that everything must be dealt with or fixed now. It helps you prioritize the most relevant needs at the time, while allowing you to return to the problem when it’s appropriate.

Dr. Ross Greene now has a revised version available of his book “The Explosive Child.” I believe it’s very similar to the first, although he replaces the concept of “baskets” with that of “Plans.” If you haven’t read the book, or not in a while, you may wish to revisit it to get a better understanding of the Collaborative Problem Solving Process. It’s difficult to recapture a workshop in a summary, but I found Dr. Greene to be encouraging, relevant and thought-provoking so wanted to share some of what I learned. I hope you find it helpful!

Jo Pelishek, Family Advocate Wisconsin Family Ties