In this first of a series, we will look at the stages of conflict. I used this tool last week with a family leadership team to help them assess not only what was happening within the family but also to help them see what was likely to happen if they weren’t extraordinarily careful. This is a simplified version of a model created by Dr. Frederick Glasl, an Austrian economist, management consultant and conflict researcher.
In his model conflict can be seen to escalate through three distinct levels. Each level has stages which mark the entry, middle and end of that level. To test what you think of this model, think about the last big fight you were in with a spouse, partner, colleague or friend. You can also test this against larger public or national conflicts.
Level 1: Squaring Off
Conflict begins as competing positions become defined. Glasl refers to this is as “hardening”. Hardening begins when a stubborn problem is not amenable to easy solution. Conversations at this level are still premised on fairness and the possibility of reasoned solution, but as each attempt fails, the parties become increasingly frustrated at their inability to get what they want. Opinions gain clarity and focus, but little traction to the point that the parties can be seen to be staking out positions. In groups, individuals start to coalesce around these positions which are often framed as polarities. Those invested in the brewing conflict feel as though the stakes are too high to step back through avoidance or accommodation. As repeated efforts to compromise fall flat, the parties begin to lose hope that the problem can be resolved.
As the parties loose hope, they enter into the middle stage of level 1: “polemics”. As reasonable alternative solutions are discarded as unworkable, the parties start to resort to “quasi-rational” tactics. The positions are now inflexible and the conflict is beginning to be seen as a single instance of a broader pattern of behavior. Saving face starts to be important at this stage and therefore the disagreement becomes more personal. This stage is characterized by bickering about the cause of the problem, determining who is objectively right and wrong about particulars, exaggeration of implications of the other’s position, linking the controversy to larger relational issues, appeal to outside authority, stating the positions as extremes in an attempt to reach compromise. Much of this stage is about creating emotional imbalance to gain advantage and the result is that words no longer can be taken at face value – language is now a tool for gaining tactical advantage. This degradation of trust results in a sense of a loss of control by both sides and increasing resentment and shame that require self-justification.
At some point, the parties decide that talking is pointless which marks the beginning of the exit stage of level one: “actions, not words”. The parties at this point feel as though they are mutually dependent. This co-dependency prompts a desire to become self-sufficient. The goal of this stage is to push through one’s own agenda and block the other from what they want. Parties take unilateral action to gain control of themselves and the situation. They may temporarily walk away from the fight to gather resources or begin to emotionally or physically posture in attempts to subtly dominate or intimidate the other side. In groups, there is pressure to take sides around common beliefs, attitudes, and simple common denominators. Unflattering explanatory narratives are now constructed about the other side and their position. Because words cannot be trusted but have become tools in the escalating conflict, there is little genuine feed-back on the stereotypes forming of the other positions in the conflict. The battle now begins to take on decidedly “moral” overtones.
Level 2: Engaging the Enemy
Now that the parties have not only defined their positions but have become entrenched in oversimplified versions of them, they begin to fight in earnest. This next stage is all about “images and coalitions”. It begins with tests of their own strength and the strength of their opponents. The image of the other side has taken on sharp focus – ironically often because of the target’s own attempts to clarify and hone what they stand for. This creates a set of pointed expectations by both sides. Behaviors become predictable and the parties are now beginning to follow emerging scripts. Each side is functioning by an operating system or code that comports with their image. The other side filters this behavior through its interpretation of the image of the other side. Individuals come to be seen as representatives of groups or factions. Complexity and nuance disappear and it is difficult for parties to say anything truly positive about the possible merits or even character of the other side. The parties are keenly looking for gaps in the behavior of others to inflict tactical harm and gain advantage. This harm often comes in the form of “deniable punishment behavior”. Blows come in the form of insinuation, ambiguous comments, irony and pushing known emotional buttons. Because such attacks are not direct, it is difficult to confront them directly and thus a cycle of retaliatory action ensues. The other key hallmark of this stage is that it goes public for the first time. Parties attempt to enroll bystanders to bolster their position. These coalitions revolve around gaining emotional and moral support and serve as a subtle threat to the social standing of the other side.
As parties enter into the middle stage of level 2, they are actively seeking to publicly humiliate the other side which led Glasl to call this “loss of face”. The feeling in this stage is that each side has seen through the “mask” they believe the other side is wearing. They feel they were previously tricked into believing that the person is better than they “actually” are. This leads to a radical reinterpretation of the conflict and even of the relationship itself. The entire conflict is reinterpreted in term of absolutes: good v. evil, right v. wrong, truth v. falsehood. A palpable sign of this stage is that people feel bodily nauseated to be in the presence of the other. The other is seen as morally and irredeemably flawed. Tentative moves towards reconciliation are interpreted as deceptions and the actions required to prove sincerity border on humiliating the other side (e.g. public and debasing apology). The conflict is no longer about concrete issues but becomes a crusade. Every action of the other party is dismissed as deceptive and negative interactions are deemed as conclusive proof of the true nature of the opposition. The escalating cycle of retaliation is now firmly in place and has moved into a more public stage. There is no attempt to hide the conflict and bystanders are being actively enrolled to assist the combatants. Feelings of anxiety and panic run high in this stage with impulsive actions and emotional outbursts likely. Parties will often make sudden and even self-destructive moves in this stage. The conflict becomes increasingly complex, difficult to grasp, and impossible to control. This is a pivotal point in escalating conflict. Prior to this stage, conflict resolution techniques used by the parties themselves have a high probability of success. Once in this stage, it becomes increasingly difficult to resolve a conflict without outside mediation or facilitation within formally designed dispute resolution mechanisms.
Up until now, the parties have been largely tactical. In the final stage of level two, they become “strategic” for the first time. Conflict is now open and the deniable attacks of stage 4 have given way to threats and ultimatums based on plans. These threats are designed to signal refusal to retreat, create demands, demonstrate autonomy, and announce sanctions for failure to comply. As this stage escalates, the ultimatums and threats become more specific and certain. This serves to strengthen the resolve of the parties themselves and signal to others that the endgame is near. The panic of the prior stage becomes resolve and clarity. The chaos and turbulence of that stage continues, but in this phase, the conflict becomes increasingly complex, difficult to grasp, and nearly impossible to control. The threats and ultimatums introduce time pressure on the actions of both sides, thereby curtailing their possibilities to weigh the consequences of alternative courses of action and triggering reactive moves. In order to retain some measure of control, each party insists that its own issues and demands must be dealt with in exactly the form they have chosen to present them. For the threats to be credible, the parties must convince each other and interested bystanders that they mean business. The goal of this stage is to deter further escalation, force an advantageous settlement and sever the relationship. They seek to accomplish this through public commitments which impair flexibility by limiting available options and alternative courses of action. At the end of this stage, the pieces are in place for the endgame. The support of all but the most loyal bystanders begins to fade at the end of this stage as the world sees the combatants as increasingly irrational, out of touch with reality, and emotionally unhinged.
Level 3: Endgame
As conflict begins to reach its climax, the parties engage in “targeted attacks.” In this stage, the parties are concerned about protecting their own resources to ensure survival and undercutting the ability of the other side to fight. It is no longer possible to see a solution that includes the other, who is now viewed as not only an enemy but as a genuine danger. These attacks are aimed at reducing the resources of the opponent including financial wherewithal, juridical status, or control functions. Anxiety has given way to fear which in turn leads to forceful attacks. Wins create feelings of real control and power. Defeats are profoundly demoralizing and dark. Losses of the counterpart are seen as gains even if they do not materially benefit the “winner”. The calculations of consequences become increasingly skewed. Parties are willing to suffer losses if the losses they can inflict on the other side are greater. Malice and spite are now in full view. Direct communication does not occur except through third parties. Ethical norms have given way at this point. Human dignity does not stand in the way of attacks and the enemy has become pure “object” devoid of basic human qualities worthy of even a modicum of respect, kindness or charity. This is war and the normal rules do not apply. At this point the parties, when they are honest with themselves, recognize that they are in a lose-lose situation, the only question is which party will lose more.
The targeted attack phase comes to an end when “fragmentation of the enemy” begins to occur. Coalitions begin to fall apart as the stress of the conflict becomes too much to bear. Negotiators, representatives and leaders are personally attacked and pilloried. There is an attempt to keep one’s own frayed system intact in the hopes that the other side will crumble as it falls apart through its own inherent contradictions. Each side attempts to quell its own doubts, exhaustion and depletion of resources. At this point, the conflict has become a war of attrition. The goal of this stage is to obliterate the enemy and merely survive the consequences of the conflict. When hope of self-preservation collapses the conflict comes to its final stage.
If one party caves the fight is over. However if neither party has gained the upper hand and clearly “won”, then the conflict enters the “together into the abyss” stage. At this point self-preservation is neglected and the destruction of the other is paramount above all other concerns. Ruin, bankruptcy, prison sentences, suicide, physical harm and emotional devastation can result. A total war without scruples of remorse ensues until both parties are destroyed.
Conclusion
When I shared this model with the family I was working with, the primary family leader suggested that the family was in level 2 and was facing an issue that was likely to move the family from being largely in “images and coalitions” (stage 4) into “loss of face” (stage 5). During the course of the two day meeting, the family managed to find a path forward that kept the conflict from escalating. The basic coalitions remain, but the side with more formal power found a way to allow the side with the more informal power to save face. The family avoided the competitive move through a process that involved some compromise and some accommodation. Seeing where the conflict was likely to go next if people remained intransigent was one part of a successful resolution. The family is not out of the woods yet, but they are in the process of a healthy de-escalation rather than locked in a death spiral of escalating family conflict towards an inevitable endgame.
In the next installment we will look beyond diagnostics to understanding the process of de-escalation strategies.
— May 20, 2013