Nine-Stage Model of Conflict Escalation

Background

Professor Friedrich Glasl has developed the conflict ladder with the nine steps. He has, among other things, worked for UNESCO. Today he is affiliated with the University of Salzburg, specializing in organizational development and conflict management. He has written many textbooks.

Friedrich Glasl does not see the conflict ladder as a climb to a higher and higher conflict level, but a descent into increasingly deeper, primitive and inhuman forms of conflict.

He believes that if you do not make an effort, the conflict can descend to levels where it costs both on the human, organizational and economic levels. It is like a swamp, you just slide further and further down, and thus get more and more stuck in the conflict.

About the model

Overall, the model is built in three phases – with three steps in each phase – so nine steps in total. We move downwards in the model the worse the conflict gets.

In stage I, which covers the first three steps, the conflict is about the issue. We can easily have different opinions about the issue, but we go after the ball and not the person.

In stage II, which covers stages 4 through 6, both parties to the conflict feel that, despite all good intentions, they can no longer turn a blind eye to the fact that the other party is an idiot/incompetent/evil, etc. A result can only be achieved at the other party's expense.

In stage III, which covers the last three steps of the model, the conflict is so great that we now try to destroy the other party - even if it costs us our own losses. It is actually a form of war. It doesn't matter if we lose an order, as long as it hurts the department we don't like more!

The Nine Steps

Step 1

At the Discussion stage, the conflict is barely a conflict. The parties find it interesting to exchange views and benefit from listening to each other. 

Step 2

At the Tactical Argument stage, the parties are no longer really interested in understanding each other. What they are each concerned with is how they can find gaps and weaknesses in the other party's argument - and possibly find the decisive argument themselves that can checkmate the other. There is therefore no development in the discussion, and when it ends, both parties are effectively where they have been all along.

Step 3

At the step - Actions instead of words - one of the parties decides to "cut through" and implement what he/she thinks is sensible. (You can possibly take advantage of the other party's absence, vacation, etc.). When the other party finds out about this, he/she becomes angry. 

Step 4

As a result of this anger, the sidelined party gradually forms an enemy image of the other party - which, however, very quickly follows with a similar image. Both are trying to win allies, and those who try to remain neutral may risk being put under pressure to choose a side.

When the parties describe the course of events so far, their descriptions now begin to differ greatly from each other. Now we are going after the man – not the ball. 

Step 5

At the step - Loss of face - enemy images are reinforced so much that one of the parties to the conflict may take action – or one may arrange a situation that humiliates the other. The one who loses self-control risks being made a scapegoat or sidelined. 

Step 6

At some point, one of the parties – often the one who felt humiliated in step 5) resorts to regular threats. This can be, for example, a written warning (“On the occasion of … it must be emphasized that …”) – or bitter words (“This will have consequences”). 

Step 7

At the stage - selective destruction - both parties find it necessary to let actions follow words and give the other a taste of the seriousness of the situation and the strength to carry out the threats made.

Step 8

At the stage – Destruction of the center – the war is escalated with the aim of rendering the other party incapacitated – with the least possible cost to oneself. This is approached with the same professionalism as a “real” war. 

Step 9

At this last stage, the parties become so embittered that they do not care whether they take part themselves – as long as they can add new pain or suffering to the other party. This is a real “suicide” stage. Everyone accepts losing their job or that the company goes bankrupt.