Stages in the Escalation of conflict

The brief stage outlines below are based on the work of Friedrich Glasl whose conflict escalation model has been summarised by Thomas Jordan including the overview table below and is available on his excellent website under other resources.

I was painfully reminded recently, when asked to facilitate a resolution process, of the need to assess the how far a conflict had progressed. The conflict had gone beyond the point where the protagonists cared much about the issues which had given rise to the conflict and cared little about the damage they were doing to themselves and others - so locked were they into their pursuit of proving their own "rightness", attacking the other's character and preventing their opponents from achieving their goals.

When genuine attempts to resolve conflict through dialogue and other constructive approaches break down, conflict takes on an escalatory momentum of its own.The escalation becomes more difficult to reverse the farther it progresses and has to be consciously resisted if it is not to get out of control.

Glasl's model of conflict escalation provides a valuable way of describing the negative progress or degeneration of a conflict into destructive interactions. It can help the facilitator recognise the stage of escalation and choose an appropriate intervention for that stage. The model can also help protagonists recognise the mechanisms of the escalatory process, and the likely consequences of continued escalation. Such awareness may help them back off and choose a more constructive option.

While Glasl's model is presented at the level of inter-group conflict the principles apply equally to interpersonal and to international conflict. The model reflects physical destruction or annihilation in the latter stages of escalation but it also applies to the destruction of one's psychological identity, social position and material assets that are more commonly at stake and under threat in everyday conflicts.

At Stage 1, interests and opinions become fixed positions that tend to become mutually incompatible in the perception of the conflicting parties. Frustrations arising from failed efforts to overcome their differences degenerate into disappointment, suspicion and the perception that efforts to resolve are a waste of time. With no progress, parties become increasingly aware of the mutual dependencies they cannot evade. Straight talking is replaced manipulative argument. Trust that the other genuinely wants resolution wanes rapidly.

In Stage 2, opponents vacillate between cooperative and competitive behaviour and seem resistant to rational argument. Verbal encounters become more confrontational. Focus is on promoting one's position, gaining tactical advantage at the other's expense and concern with how it will impact on one's identity and reputation. Avoidance of blame, exaggeration of potential implications and consequences and appeals to values and traditions to leverage influence are commonplace. Emotional pressure, power differentials and aggressive actions are all used to boost self-esteem and create impact. Yielding or flexibility is risky and looks like weakness.

Stage 3 begins when one side tires of talking and takes action without consulting the other. The focus becomes that of blocking the counterpart from reaching their goals and forcing them to yield.  Polarisation, personalisation and stereotyping are exacerbated by the breakdown in communication following unilateral action. Capacity to relate to the other's concerns and perspective is rapidly reduced and replaced by assumption, inferred intentions, heightened fears and defensiveness which compounds the negative view of the counterpart. Personal responsibility decreases as actions are regarded as necessary responses to the other's actions. 

Stage 4 sees a shift from focus on issues to personalisation of the conflict in the form of veiled and deniable slurs/attacks on the other's character or good name. It is characterised by the onset of a win-loose mentality and defence of identity and reputation take priority. There is doubt about the other's value and integrity and they may be seen as beyond influence. "Such people are unable to change".  Provocation often occurs by deniable insinuations, ambiguous comments, irony and body language but the other party cannot respond by openly discussing the incident for fear of retaliatory action. Public confrontation is used to garner support.

Stage 5 is initiated by the public loss of face by one or both parties. It is accompanied by a radical transformation of the image one holds of the other and experienced as a sudden insight into the true, and usually immoral or sub-human, nature of the other. All seemingly constructive moves of the counterpart are dismissed as deceptions and it is extremely difficult to build mutual trust. Demands for public apology, fears of showing weakness or further undermining one's reputation lead to deadlock, further denigration of the other and attempts to protect "face" and gain the moral/ethical high-ground.

Stage 6 is characterised by the issuing of strategic threats and ultimata of damaging actions to control, force concessions from and limit the options of opponents. These rapidly escalate the pressure for urgent response and also pressure on the issuer to follow through to avoid loosing face and credibility. By binding themselves to threat strategies, the parties heavily restrict their own freedom of choosing alternative courses of action. Implementation of limited versions of the threats are seen as proof of the aggressive intentions and capability of the other - increasing the fear/possibility of the opponent getting their retaliation in first.

In Stage 7, securing one's own further survival is an essential concern. The counterpart is seen as an impediment that must be eliminated and attacks aim to damage the other.The counterpart is now a pure enemy, and has no longer human qualities.Anything goes.Attacks lead to revenge and even more destructive retaliation. Calculation of consequences becomes increasingly skewed: the losses of the counterpart are counted as gains, even though they don't give any benefits whatsoever in terms of one's own interests and needs. The parties may be prepared to suffer losses, if only there are prospects that the enemy will suffer even larger losses. Malice may become a powerful motive. There is no longer any real communication. Each party is only concerned with expressing their own message, and they don't care about how it is received, or what the response might be. 

At Stage 8 winning is no longer possible it is a loose-loose struggle where you inflict maximum damage to the other at minimum cost to oneself. The only restraint is concern for one's own survival. Attacks intensify and aim at destroying the vital systems and the power base of the adversary. Opponent's allies and supporters may be targeted, in order to destroy their legitimacy and power and create division and fragmentation. Revenge and retaliation cycles escalate in seriousness. The main objective is now to destroy the operating basis or even existence of the adversary. The aim is to outlast the other even if it is a Phyrric victory.

At Stage 9 all concern for oneself and one's interests has been abandoned. In the absence of self-preservation there are no longer any checks on destructiveness. All hope of resolution or even backing off from the rush to the abyss of mutual destruction is gone. Not even one's own survival counts, destruction of the other dominates, even at the expense of one's own very existence as an organization, group, or individual. Ruin, bankruptcy, prison sentences, physical harm: nothing matters any longer. All bridges are burnt, there is no return. 

A stage model of conflict escalation, adapted from F. Glasl (reference below)

Stage	Conflict issues	Behavioural norms	In-group/out-group cognitions and attitudes	Threshold to next level
1. "Hardening"	Objective issues. Hardening standpoints	Straight argumentation	Awareness of mutual dependence. Nascent role expectations. Nascent in-/out-group formation, "skins" form around groups. Suspicions about hidden motives	Tactical tricks used in the argumentation
2. "Debates and polemics"	Objective issues and relative position, superiority. Ability to influence.	Verbal confrontations. Tactical feints in argumentation. Debates.	Affinity inwards. Fixation at standpoints. Ambivalence cooperation/ competition. Suspiciousness. Counterpart has "typical behaviour".	Action without consultation
3. "Actions, not words"	Objective issues and self-image. Freedom of action. Prove one's own mastery. Blocking the counterpart.	Action without consultation. Accomplished facts Symbolic behaviour (jargon). Decreased verbal communication - increased non-verbal communication. Extended social arena	Blocked empathy. "Counterpart not capable of development". In-group conformity pressure	"Deniable punishment behaviour" . Covert attacks directly aimed at identity of counterpart
4. "Images and coalitions"	Counterpart is the problem. Win or lose. Save reputation.	"Deniable punishment behaviour". Exploitation of gaps in norms. Formation of coalitions. Attacks on core identity	Dual cognition (black/white). Coherent enemy image. Attribution of collective characteristics to counterpart.  Self-image as only reacting to counterpart	Loss of face
5. "Loss of face"	Fundamental values. Expose counterpart. Rehabilitate dignity	Attacks on the public face of the counterpart. Restore prestige	Enemy "unmasked": perceived as morally corrupt. Guilt symbiosis in-group	Ultimatum. Strategic threats
6. "Strategies of threats"	Control of counterpart	Presentation of ultimata. Panic-ruled actions. Self-binding statements. Extension of conflict	Own actions are only reactions. Perceived impotence => rage. Need for control	Execution of ultimata. Attacks on counterparts sanction potential
7. "Limited destructive blows"	Hurt counterpart more than one's own group. Nothing to gain. Survival	Attacks at sanction potential. Threats + interrupted communication.	Counterpart prepared to do anything. Counterpart not human. Power-thinking dominates. Malice important motive	Attacks at core of enemy. Effort to shatter enemy
8. "Fragmentation of the enemy"	Annihilate counterpart. Survival	Attacks at vital functions. Actions to shatter counterpart. Attacks on cohesive function	Annihilation fantasies . Fascination with mechanical annihilation mechanisms	Giving up self-preservation. Total war
9. "Together into the abyss"	Annihilation at any cost	Total war with all means, Limitless violence	Accept one's own destruction if counterpart is destroyed	-

Glasl, F. (1997) Konfliktmanagement. Ein Handbuch fuer Fuehrungskraefte, Beraterinnen und Berater, 5., erweiterte Auflage, Bern: Verlag Paul Haupt.