plan b collaborative problem solving

PROVIDER MENU

The CPS Model

Collaborative & Proactive Solutions  (CPS) is recognized as an empirically-supported, evidence-based treatment by the  California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare  (CEBC). Here’s an overview of its basic tenets:

When kids have difficulty meeting certain expectations, they become frustrated. Some kids are lacking the skills — flexibility, frustration tolerance, emotion regulation, and problem solving — to handle that frustration adaptively. And that’s when they exhibit concerning behaviors. In other words, concerning behavior is simply the way in which some kids communicate that there are expectations they are having difficulty meeting. In the CPS model, those “unmet” expectations are called “unsolved problems.” The emphasis of the CPS model isn’t on modifying the concerning behavior by imposing consequences. Rather the model focuses on identifying unsolved problems and then engaging kids in solving them. Solved problems don’t cause concerning behavior; only unsolved problems do. Consequences don’t solve problems.

In the CPS model, the problem solving is of the  collaborative  and  proactive  variety. This is in contrast to many of the interventions that are commonly applied to kids, which are of the unilateral and emergent variety. As such, the CPS model is non-punitive and non-adversarial, decreases the likelihood of conflict, enhances relationships, improves communication, and helps kids and adults learn and display skills on the more positive side of human nature:  empathy, appreciating how one’s behavior is affecting others, resolving disagreements in ways that do not involve conflict, taking another’s perspective, and honesty.

How do you identify a kid’s lagging skills and unsolved problems? By completing the Assessment of Lagging Skills and Unsolved Problems (ALSUP). And how do you solve those problems? By doing Plan B, which involves three basic ingredients. The first ingredient – called the Empathy step – involves gathering information so as to achieve the clearest understanding of what’s making it hard for a kid to meet a particular expectation. The second ingredient (called the Define the Problem step) involves entering the adult’s concern or perspective into consideration (i.e., why it’s important that the expectation be met). The third ingredient (called the Invitation step) involves having adults and kids brainstorm solutions so as to arrive at a plan of action that is both realistic and mutually satisfactory…in other words, a solution that addresses both concerns and that both parties can actually do.

In countless families, schools, inpatient psychiatry units, group homes, residential facilities, and juvenile detention facilities, the CPS model has been shown to be an effective way to solve problems, reduce conflict, improve behavior, and enhance the skills kids need to function adaptively in the real world.

You can learn more about the CPS model on the website of the non-profit  Lives in the Balance , where you’ll find vast free resources to help you use the model, including streaming video, a listening library, and lots more.  Various books, CDs, and DVDs describing the model are available in the  CPS Store  on this website, and training options can be found on the Workshops/Training  page.

Is there a one-page description of the model that I can download?

Sure thing! Just  click here to view and print it.  

Didn’t Dr. Greene originally refer to his model by the name Collaborative Problem Solving?

Yes, you can read more about the name change  here . It’s not a pretty tale…

Collaborative and Proactive Solutions™

Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS)

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 24 November 2020
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Benjamin Rosen 4  

41 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Collaborative and Proactive Solutions (CPS)

Introduction

The Collaborative Problem Solving model (CPS) was developed by Dr. Ross Greene and his colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital’s Department of Psychiatry. The model was created as a reconceptualization of the factors that lead to challenging or oppositional behaviors, and a shift in the targets of intervention for these behaviors. Dr. Greene published the book The Explosive Child in 1998, which was the first detailed description of CPS. Multiple research studies (detailed below) have followed in the time since the book’s publication.

In the subsequent years there was a split between Dr. Greene and Massachusetts General Hospital. Massachusetts General Hospital has continued its work on CPS via the “Think:Kids” program under the direction of Dr. Stuart Ablon, who had previously collaborated with Dr. Greene. Dr. Greene has founded a nonprofit organization called “Lives in the Balance” to further his work on CPS, which...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Becker, K., Chorpita, D., & Daleiden, B. (2011). Improvement in symptoms versus functioning: How do our best treatments measure up? Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38 (6), 440–458.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bill of Rights for Behaviorally Challenging Kids. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.livesinthebalance.org/bill-rights-behaviorally-challenging-kids

Drilling Cheat Sheet. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.livesinthebalance.org/sites/default/files/Drilling%20Cheat%20Sheet%20060417.pdf

Greene, R. (2010). Collaborative problem solving. In Clinical handbook of assessing and treating conduct problems in youth (1st ed., pp. 193–220). New York: Springer.

Google Scholar  

Greene, R., & Winkler, J. (2019). Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS): A review of research findings in families, schools, and treatment facilities. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 22 (4), 549–561.

Greene, R. W., Ablon, J. S., Goring, J. C., Raezer-Blakely, L., Markey, J., Monuteaux, M. C., Henin, A., Edwards, G., & Rabbitt, S. (2004). Effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in affectively Dysregulated children with oppositional-defiant disorder: Initial findings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72 (6), 1157–1164.

Ollendick, T. H., Greene, R. W., Austin, K. E., Fraire, M. G., Halldorsdottir, T., Allen, K. B., Jarret, M. A., Lewis, K. M., Smith, M. W., Cunningham, N. R., Noguchi, R. J. P., Canavera, K., & Wolff, J. (2016). Parent management training and Collaborative & Proactive Solutions: A randomized control trial for oppositional youth. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 45 (5), 591–604.

Pollastri, A., Epstein, L., Heath, G., & Ablon, J. (2013). The collaborative problem solving approach: Outcomes across settings. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 21 (4), 188–199.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Family Institute at Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

Benjamin Rosen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Rosen .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

The Family Institute at Northwestern, Evanston, IL, USA

Anthony Chambers

Douglas C. Breunlin

Section Editor information

The Family Institute at Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

Jay L. Lebow Ph.D.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Rosen, B. (2020). Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS). In: Lebow, J., Chambers, A., Breunlin, D.C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_1160-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_1160-1

Received : 11 February 2020

Accepted : 12 February 2020

Published : 24 November 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-15877-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-15877-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

FIND A MEDIATOR QUICK LISTS

• Mediators Listed by State/City
• Mediators Listed by Practice Area
• Mediator Services
• Certification
• Mediate University
• Statewide Banner
• Online Meeting Room
• About Mediation
• Public Policy

Collaborative Problem Solving: An Effective Approach For Managing Conflict In The Workplace

The workplace is a complex interpersonal environment where conflict inevitably occurs. When handled poorly, conflict undermines relationships, team performance, and morale. It keeps managers and staff alike up at night, dreading the start of a new day at work. When handled well, working though conflict can build trust and create a positive work environment where people work effectively together.

Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) was originated by Dr. Ross Greene and subsequently developed by Dr. Greene and Dr. Stuart Ablon, and their associates at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Harvard Medical School. It is a method of conflict resolution that was originally developed for working with very difficult children. As more people have learned CPS, it has been applied in an increasingly wide range of settings with diverse populations and provocative results. Its effectiveness has been demonstrated everywhere from homes and schools to residential treatment facilities, hospitals and even corrections facilities. We have found this approach to be coherent, accessible, and applicable to the workplace setting.

The CPS Philosophy

It is essential for the managers to establish an expectation among themselves and with their staff that conflict will be handled in a consistent manner. Managers also need to have and to communicate a clear philosophy of conflict management. The original philosophy of CPS is that “kids do well if they can. If they can’t, we adults need to figure out why, so we can help. ” Translated into the workplace, this reads, “staff do well at their jobs if they can. If they can’t, managers need to help them figure out why, so they can.”

The CPS philosophy informs us that the manager’s explanation of a staff’s behavior, attitude, etc. will guide his or her intervention with that staff member. Conventional wisdom tells the manager that staff’s challenging behavior is usually designed to get things or avoid things, such as getting attention or avoiding work. Flowing from a conventional explanation like this, a conventional response to such behavior would be to ignore it or try to motivate more compliant behavior. This approach might work in some situations, but not as effectively as a transparent, systematic, and collaborative method of conflict resolution.

The CPS Approach To Managing Conflict

When presented with conflict or an expectation that a staff member is not meeting, managers generally have three choices: Plan A: impose their will; Plan B: collaborative problem solving; Plan C: drop the issue, at least for now.

Which option managers chose depends on the long term and short term goals managers have with individual staff; how far along they and their staff are in realizing those goals; and the situation/problem at hand. As managers come to know more about each of these Plans and as they improve their understanding of how each of their staff respond to them in different situations, they will gain more confident in which Plan to chose at any given point in time.

In executing Plan A, managers are exercising their prerogative as the person in authority. This is what French and Raven (1959) refer to as “legitimate power.” There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach. Sometimes it represents the shortest distance between two points. Sometimes staff really want their manager to make an executive decision and get on with it rather than take the time needed to arrive at a consensus.

More often, Plan A is experienced by staff in the same way they experienced a parent saying, “because I said so.” Staff may comply because there was no real choice, but they remain angry and consequently find passive ways to resist. Managers, may be able to tell themselves, “my staff did what I told them to do”, but it is highly likely that the situations which required the boss to give these orders will keep popping up. Plan A can be effective; it can also be risky and unproductive. It rarely solves tough problems in durable ways. It certainly does not teach staff the skills that would be needed to resolve such issues in the future without the intervention of their managers. It definitely does not build the kind of collaborative relationships that are key to effective management in organizations that require group problem solving to succeed.

Plan C has obvious advantages. “Pick your battles” is sage and time-tested advice, but that there is a significant downside to this strategy. Managers are likely to feel that when they execute Plan C they will be viewed by staff as dodging the issue or capitulating. They might then be concerned that their staff, in observing their managers avoid a conflict, will be emboldened to continue with this behavior. To execute Plan C properly, the manager must recognize that Plan C is not giving in. It is a well thought out decision. What is giving in? A failed Plan A leading to Plan C! In other words, the manager tries to make staff do something, it does not occur, and then the manager drops the expectation. The key to using Plan C successfully is to only use it tactically. Managers use it when they have reasoned that a particular conflict is not worth the time it will take to effectively work it through; because the timing is not right for dealing with the issue; or simply because they or their organizations have bigger fish to fry for the moment.

Plan B is the middle way. Plan B is the heart and soul of CPS: it is collaborative problem solving. At the end of a successfully executed Plan B the manger can say to him or herself, “we worked it out. We solved the problem…..together.” Obviously CPS did not invent the idea that people at different levels of authority can jointly work out their problems. What CPS does exceptionally well is to describe a series of  research-based  and easily understandable  steps for accomplishing this goal.

Our description of Plan B below differs somewhat from how Plan B is described in working with challenging kids. The modifications to Plan B flow from our experience applying it in the workplace. Plan B consists of two phases. In the first phase, the manager and staff member form a collaborative relationship. They take turns working towards a mutual definition of their problem. This definition serves as the basis for entering into the second phase, which is negotiation and problem solving. The first phase generally takes a lot longer than the second. It’s a lot like painting a room in a house. To paint well, two-thirds of the time needs to be spent prepping. Only one-third of the time will actually be devoted to applying the paint. The same holds true for two people trying to solve a problem. It is the “prep work” that makes the difference between an effort that lasts and one that just buys a little time until the next conflict. Although the first phase of Plan B is broken into three steps, it is often necessary to go back and forth between steps to complete this prep work. Plan B should be thought of as a process, not a technique.

When Plan B is executed after careful thought has been given, it is called Proactive Plan B. However, sometimes situations quickly arise and it is not possible to take the time to thoughtfully develop a Plan B. The situation demands that the manager responds immediately. When managers apply the principles of CPS on the fly, without a clear plan, this is called Emergency Plan B. It is less likely to be effective than Proactive Plan B, but it is much more likely to be effective than trying to respond to a conflict in the moment without a set of guiding principles. Since chronic problems with staff not meeting expectations in the work place are quite common, managers who are skilled in using CPS will rarely need to use Emergency Plan B with staff they have come to know. Rather, they will have planned, proactive conversations with staff to develop an approach together that they can then use when the need arises in the future.

A Step By Step Illustration Of How To Execute Plan B

Follow the link to the full article which provides step by step instructions and multiple illustrations of how to execute Plan B. It also includes a “troubleshooting” section which provides guidance to managers about what to do when they feel stuck or find that a particular Plan B is not working as well as a broader discussion of the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of CPS.

Attachments to this Article

• CPSInTheWorkplace.pdf

Seth Bernstein

Seth Bernstein, Ph.D., is a psychologist who has worked as a clinician and managed care executive for over thirty years. Dr. Bernstein is currently the Executive Director of the Accountable Behavioral Health Alliance. Prior to his work at ABHA, Dr. Bernstein worked as a manager for The Travelers Insurance Company,… MORE >

Stuart Ablon

J. Stuart Ablon, Ph.D., is the Director of Think:Kids in the Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital. He is also Associate Clinical Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Ablon co-founded the Center for Collaborative Problem Solving where he also served as Co-Director… MORE >

Featured Members

Read these next, headlines of mediation failure not based on evidence.

The infrequent, but still too often headline reads “mediation fails.” This bold assertion, an absolute, is taken at face value by the reader, despite its inaccuracy, which should inspire curiosity,...

Preventing Additional Disputes about Money

Disputes about money are one of the major issues we see in mediation. When a business is running well and the economy is good the topic rarely comes up, but...

John Paul Lederach: Experience in International Peace-Building – Video

John Paul Lederach describes his background and experience teaching and peace-building within the international arena.

Kids (and adults) do well if they can.

Collaborative problem solving®.

CPS was originated by Dr. Ross Greene and further developed with Dr. Stuart Ablon at Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital to deal with extreme behaviours demonstrated by young people. CPS requires us to change how we view and work with our children presenting challenging behaviours.

The CPS Philosophy states, “Kids do well if they can.” If they are not doing well there is something getting in the way so parents and teachers need to figure out what so we can help.This is an unconventional approach to dealing with problem behaviour. We believe kids want to behave and that their challenging behaviour is a result of not having the cognitive skills to meet the expectations place upon them.

With Collaborative Problem Solving® we learn to solve problems and teach skills through a relational approach called Plan B. Plan B is a specific structured problem solving conversation we have with the child. The Plan B ingredients are:

• Empathy – clarifying the child’s concern
• Sharing the adult concern
• Collaborating : brainstorming, assessing and choosing a solution that address both sets of concerns

The CPS model helps us pursue our high priority expectations, reduce challenging behaviour, solve chronic problems durably, build cognitive skills and create, or restore, a helping relationship.

Research shows CPS helps families Pollastri,Epstein,Heath & Ablon, 2013 found: -statistically significant reductions in symptoms and severity of challenging behaviours as well as parental stress -significant improvements in parental competence, child’s autonomy and parent-child interactions Besides challenging kids, who else can benefit from CPS?

CPS is applicable to diverse human interactions, especially those that can result in conflict. CPS can be applied to interactions between classmates, siblings, couples, parents and teachers, employees and supervisors, and nations. All people benefit from learning how to identify and articulate their concerns, hear the concerns of others, and take each others’ concerns into account in working toward mutually satisfactory solutions.

Why I am Passionate About CPS

As a teacher I felt that I was able to create exciting learning environments for my students. If a child was not learning, with the help of the special education teacher and other colleagues, I was able to develop a plan to teach the academic skills the child needed to be successful.

I also found that sometimes a child’s challenging behaviour was getting in the way and impacting student learning. What plan did I have to help the student? I had a few conventional strategies I’d developed and some approaches that others had shared with me, but no real thoughtful plan to follow. The conventional strategies included; consequences, rewards, punishments and ignoring, all aimed at “getting the kids to wanna behave.” There was no thought about teaching cognitive skills necessary for problem solving, really listening to get the child’s perspective or believing that the child wasn’t intentionally being lazy or manipulative. Everyone seemed to agree that conventional approaches were the way to go.

The Source For Parenting Advice & Events In Oregon

• Collaborative Problem Solving – Plans A And C

This is the sixth column in a series of columns about Collaborative Problem Solving, or CPS. You can find the previous column here .

The previous columns have centered around how to use “Plan B” to solve unsolved problems with your child. “Plan B” is the preferred method of solving problems. However, within the CPS framework, there is also a “Plan A” and “Plan C”. Let’s look briefly at what those are and when they might be of use.

“Plan A” is CPS terminology for the conventional method of solving problems, in which the adult simply imposes their will on the child. There is a relational cost to using Plan A, and it should be used sparingly, but there may be times when safety concerns outweigh the potential relational cost and the adult must find some way to simply impose their will. Consider a parent who simply picks up and holds a toddler, despite the ensuing tantrum, to prevent them from running into the street. Think of the parent of a teenager withholding permission for their child to attend a party that is not properly supervised. These are the types of scenarios in which Plan A might be appropriate. It’s essential when using Plan A that the parent has a workable plan for enforcement. If your plan is not enforceable, then you must go to Plan B.

“Plan C” is CPS terminology for choosing to ignore the problem, for the time being. You might employ this for one of two reasons:

1. Solving the problem requires cognitive skills that are currently beyond your child’s level of development.

2. You are focused on other unsolved problems at the moment.

When employing Plan C, it’s important to note that you are only ignoring this for the time being . There will come a time later on, after more cognitive development has taken place, or after some other unsolved problems resolve into durable solutions, when you will be able to take up any problem that you’ve chosen to “Plan C” for the moment.

The next, and final, column in this series will center around how to prioritize which unsolved problems to tackle first. It will also provide some further CPS resources.

Matthew King lives with his fifteen-year-old son in Corvallis, Oregon, where he’s taught English for thirteen years. He also does advocacy work in the school district for children who have experienced trauma in early childhood. In his spare time he hikes, reads, writes, practices meditation, and watches his son ride dirt bikes. He welcomes comments and feedback and can be contacted at [email protected]

On the issues that matter in Malone NY (USA)

—Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

What about children and teens who are non-compliant—who won’t do as you say?

Defiance, or non-compliance, has many origins and causes.

I find the work of a Harvard psychologist, Dr. Ross Greene, to be very helpful on chronic non-compliance.  His book is called The Explosive Child . (He’s written a more technical version for therapists and teachers called Treating Explosive Kids .)

Greene calls his method Collaborative Problem Solving.

Just how useful is Collaborative Problem Solving?  Juvenile correction facilities in the State of Maine managed to reduce their rates of solitary confinement by 90 percent using Collaborative Problem Solving, once staff and guards were trained in the technique.  Pretty impressive.

At the root of Collaborative Problem Solving is a shift in basic assumptions about defiance.  Instead of seeing non-compliance as an act of willfulness (“he wants to be like that”), it is viewed as a skills deficit (“there are things he doesn’t know how to do, which get in the way of complying”).

Kids want to do well if they can, argues Dr. Greene.  The issue, he says, is to teach them skills, so as not to have to rely solely on ways of motivating them.

Skills teaching means describing, demonstrating, providing opportunities for practice, and helping a person to apply skills during times of stress or crisis, when the skill is most needed and hardest to put into action.  The involved adults need guidelines and practice, too.

Here are several of the skills that may be weak or missing in chronically non-compliant children:

(1) Language skills:  A child or teen may not be able to understand language well enough or fast enough to get the full meaning of what is said to him.  He may have trouble getting his own thoughts and feelings into words.  Children with learning and reading disabilities often have language difficulties. (2) Executive functions:  These are the planning and thinking skills, which tend to be poor in ADHD, bipolar disorder, and other types of problems. One executive skill is the ability to suspend emotions temporarily-put them on hold-in order to think through and solve a problem. Another, called working memory, is the ability to hold a group of ideas in mind while thinking about them.  Specifically, in problem-solving, a person needs to remember similar experiences from the past, think about the needs of different people in the present situation, and project possible solutions forward into the future to see what their outcomes might be.  This is a lot of thinking power. A third important executive skill, set shifting, is the ability to shift smoothly from one set of rules and expectations to another.  Some people say “no” at first to every request, but come around if left alone with the idea for a few minutes.  (Teachers know that children are more wound up when they come in from recess, and take some time to settle down.  This is set shifting.) (3) Emotional regulation skills:  This refers to emotional state at baseline, away from conflict or times of frustration.  For instance, a chronically anxious, grouchy, irritable, or sad person is going to have more trouble handling frustration and conflict, and may need treatment for underlying emotional states and needs. (4) Cognitive flexibility skills:  Some people are black-and-white thinkers.  They think it’s their way or no way, and can’t see how their own needs might be still taken care of by a different plan.  Other people tolerate lots of shades of grey.  They are good at compromising, trying a different way, or taking others’ points of view.  Many people with autism spectrum problems are black-and-white thinkers. (5) Social skills:  Some people don’t have good antennae for what other people are thinking or feeling, and aren’t good at figuring out by intuition and imitation how to act so other people are comfortable.  People in the autism spectrum have trouble with this.

The goal of Collaborative Problem Solving is to use problems to be solved (when one person wants one thing, and the other person wants another thing) as opportunities to teach a child through the skills deficit (or several deficits) which gets in the way of his problem-solving.  Problems are solved using plan A, B, or C. “A” means the adult’s will prevails, “C” means the child’s will prevails, and “B” is for both.

All the interesting work, of course, occurs in B.  Next time I’ll describe the three plans, and how to achieve B.