Parenting philosophy

Collaborative problem solving or Good enough?

The difference between Collaborative problem solving and Good enough is mostly one axis: where guidance comes from. Collaborative problem solving sits toward research, books, a named method; Good enough sits toward instinct and observation. They agree, more than most people expect, on response to distress, physical closeness and expectation. Neither is the correct one. What follows is what each asks of a parent, and where the difference actually shows up on a Tuesday.

Collaborative problem solving

Greene's premise is that challenging behaviour is a skill problem rather than a motivation problem, so incentives aim at the wrong thing. You list the specific situations that reliably go wrong, and then solve each one with the child — in a calm moment, never in the middle of it — until you find a solution you can both actually live with. It is the most procedural approach here and the most demanding on the adult in advance.

What it asks of you

  • Doing the work when nothing is going wrong, which is when nobody feels like it
  • Hearing your child's concern all the way out before offering yours
  • Letting go of solutions you already had in mind
  • Keeping a list, literally — the method does not run from memory

Good enough

Winnicott's claim was that the good-enough parent serves the child better than the perfect one, because ordinary failure in small, survivable doses is how a child learns the world does not arrange itself around them. In practice this is the least doctrinaire row here: you borrow what works, you do not run a system, and you accept that a fair proportion of what you do will be mediocre and that this is the design rather than the failure.

What it asks of you

  • Giving up the idea that there is a method you are failing to execute
  • Enough steadiness that the imperfection is ordinary rather than frightening
  • Tolerating other parents who are very sure
  • Noticing when good-enough has quietly become not-enough, which nothing in the position flags for you
Side by side

Where they differ

Collaborative problem solving is the filled marker, Good enough the hollow one. Widest difference first.

G1Where guidance comes from
instinct and observationresearch, books, a named method

Collaborative problem solving sits toward research, books, a named method; Good enough sits toward instinct and observation.

D2Who decides
we work it out with themthe adults decide, and explain

Collaborative problem solving sits firmly toward we work it out with them; Good enough sits between the two.

D3Consequences
no imposed consequences at allthe same consequence, every time

Collaborative problem solving sits toward no imposed consequences at all; Good enough sits between the two.

C1Consistency that can be heldwhat your life allows
it varies — by the day, and by who is onthe same line every time

Collaborative problem solving sits toward the same line every time; Good enough sits a little toward it varies — by the day, and by who is on.

R2Behaviour or feeling
what they didwhat is underneath it

Collaborative problem solving sits toward what is underneath it; Good enough sits between the two.

C2Bandwidthwhat your life allows
running on emptyhaving room for this

Collaborative problem solving sits toward having room for this; Good enough sits a little toward running on empty.

D4Praise and rewards
describing what is therepraising and rewarding freely

Collaborative problem solving sits toward describing what is there; Good enough sits between the two.

G2Whose needs count
the child's needs come first, alwaysthe adults in the house count too

Collaborative problem solving sits between the two; Good enough sits toward the adults in the house count too.

Where they agree

Usually more than the argument between them suggests.

  • Response to distress. Both sit a little toward step in and settle them straight away.
  • Physical closeness. Both sit between the two.
  • Expectation. Both sit toward their own pace, no push.
  • How full the week is. Both sit toward unstructured time, boredom is fine.
  • Doing it themselves. Both sit a little toward letting them do it badly, from early.
  • Risk. Both sit between the two.
  • Structure. Both sit between the two.

Neither of these is the correct one

Which fits depends on what you value and on what your week actually allows — and the second of those is the half nobody writes about. The questionnaire scores both.

See which one you are already doing