A Nine Step Conflict Escalation Model

Dr. Frederic Glasl is a brilliant expert on human conflict.  He postulates that when conflicts between any two people escalate, they follow a typical interactional pattern, regardless of the content, cultural background, relationship, or the personalities of the parties. Understanding the escalation is a valuable diagnostic tool for work with people in conflict.  It can also be used to educate the client, thus empowering him or her to diagnose and reverse the escalation process on his or her own. The following is a brief summary of those stages. 

Stage 1: Hardening

When Stage 1 begins, both parties have been discussing their disagreement, are getting frustrated with the conflict, and are pessimistic that it can be resolved through amicable discussion.  Each sees the other as intractable as each person’s position hardens.  Parties begin to question the other person’s motivations and wonder whether the other truly wants to resolve the conflict as they do.

Stage 2: Debates And Polemics

As the argument becomes more confrontational, mistrust increases between the parties.  Quasi-rational discussions occur about the underlying issues, related values, or what the experts would say.  Often one person puts forth an exaggeration of the negative consequences of the other position prevailing.  Each person perceives the other as using tactics rather than discussion, and feels he or she has to use tactics as well.  It becomes more risky to say or do something that might be viewed by the other as weakness or yielding.  Aggressive actions are mainly aimed at restoring one’s self-esteem or making an impression on the other person.

Stage 3: Actions, Not Words

When both people feel they cannot accomplish anything more with words, and are clearly competitors, they enter Stage 3.  At this point, non-verbal behavior is used to make a point or to try to force the other to give in.  Each person feels totally blocked by the other, and frustrated by this mutual dependency.  Because communication is largely non-verbal, there is greater opportunity for fantasies about the other person’s motivations to develop unchecked, adding to anger and mistrust.  Parties take less and less responsibility for their own actions, which they see as unavoidable or necessary reactions to the other person’s misbehavior.  Mediation can be very useful at this stage or earlier, as people are asked to verbalize their concerns in a non-blaming atmosphere.

Stage 4: Images And Coalitions 

Parties enter this stage when their images of the other become stereotyped and fixed and very resilient to change even when new information is presented.  The actions of the other are seen as typical of their group, and each works hard to defend their own positive image while proving the other’s negative one.  At this stage, other people are often brought in, making the conflict more public, more complex, and more confusing. The original issues take a back seat to discussion of character, each side trying to save face and appear reasonable, while the other side must be completely unreasonable.

Stage 5: Loss Of Face

A dramatic negative shift occurs in the conflict when it enters Stage 5. At this juncture, the person or parties feel a sudden insight into the true, evil nature of the other person or group.  The history of the conflict is reinterpreted, each person now seeing the other as having an immoral, mean-spirited strategy from the beginning.  With one’s reputation at stake, parties are afraid to make any conciliatory actions that might be perceived as weakness or would cause them further humiliation.  The other person’s past and present actions are regarded selectively, all proving the basic immorality of that person.  To resolve a conflict at this point, confidence building is essential but difficult, and mediators have a huge challenge when they enter a conflict that has already entered Stage 5.

Stage 6: Strategies Of Threats

At least one person believes that threats are the only alternative, and uses them to try to force the other person to give up their position.  Threats are concrete and specific now, and the intensity of conflict creates a sense of urgency that often leads to impulsive and irrational behavior.  Violence is a greater possibility, as there is decreasing self-control. The person threatened is mainly focused on responding to the threat, either by protecting themselves or by making a counter threat.  The threatening person feels his or her actions are totally justified, and both parties will bring in others to support their position  It is increasingly difficult now for either party to back off, and nearly impossible to discuss the original conflict.  Chaos and rage predominate.  Intervention by an outside neutral party can cool the situation and impose order from chaos, decreasing the possibility of danger.

Stage 7: Limited Destructive Blows

At this point, normal moral values are seen as less important than survival from the threat of the other. Parties see the other as capable of violence and accept the need to use it to defend oneself.  The other person is clearly considered the enemy, and communication is completely cut off.

Stage 8: Fragmentation Of The Enemy

The goal now is to destroy the very existence of the other person or other group.  The only force preventing that is the determination to protect one’s own survival

Stage 9: Together Into The Abyss

When one’s own survival does not even matter, as long as the other is destroyed, they have reached Stage 9, and fallen into mutual destruction.

About Dr. Friedrich Glasl

Dr. Friedrich Glasl is an economist and organizational consultant with a specialty in conflict resolution. He does research and lectures at the University of Salzburg , and provides consultation in the Netherlands , Germany , Austria and other countries. He has taught conflict resolution in companies, schools, and communities for more than 30 years.  He is the author of Conflict management: A Manual for High-level Personnel from publisher Paul Haupt (2002).