9 steps to the abyss or conflicts as a connecting line

25 Basics of mediation (15)

In this blog post, you will learn how an argument can escalate into a full-blown conflict and the parties involved slide into the abyss together. It is a classic in conflict management by Glasl.

9-phase model of conflict escalation

It often seems to those involved in the conflict that the conflict is happening to them.

Seemingly without their involvement, the conflict grows out of control, which often astonishes those affected and observers. The conflict takes on a life of its own, developing a momentum that seems unstoppable. Friedrich Glasl in his standard work Conflict management a 9-phase model for this escalation development, which can now be described as a classic.

There are certainly other and, above all, more practicable models of conflict escalation, e.g. the four-stage Model from Heinz Messmer, that the Escalation of communication focussed. In the following, however, I would like to limit myself to Glasl's model.

LEVEL I (WIN-WIN)

Hardening (1st phase)

In phase one, the conflict between two people is born, a communicative opposition is audible. As opinions harden into standpoints and intellectual exchange becomes impossible in the literal sense, their conflict manifests itself. If fronts have been established, they can be broken down again with arguments in a discussion.

However, in the steady progression of the hardening, which does not find a resolution, the first doubts arise as to whether the other person recognises and appreciates one's own good will, whether they are listening at all. The firmness of one's own standpoint corresponds to the degree of reproach that the opponent will not be dissuaded from his standpoint. Emotional entanglements creep in and lay the foundation for the The maze of conflict communication.

Polarisation: debate and polemics (2nd phase)

The participants polarise, distance themselves from each other and generate their opposition. As a result, they become parties for the first time. While their views and behaviours clearly clash, they distance themselves from each other as fellow human beings. Their bond as human beings begins to disturb them.

However, nobody wants to know anything about detachment. Rather, the counterpart serves to clarify the boundaries for safeguarding one's own opinion. Reinforced Selective perception helps to avoid seeing the conflict as a shake-up of one's own person and position. The situation and the other party are increasingly seen in black and white. Thoughts and feelings are increasingly soaked in (devaluation) judgements. Such crude differentiations help to maintain or achieve one's own "clarity" and emotional security.

Bias as an early stage of anxiety increasingly characterises the relationship contact. The parties predict a high emotional risk in the event of further unbiased, open contact with each other, e.g. "Do I have to put up with this? That's not good for me! Do I need this? …"

Communicative retreatsometimes in exaggerated verbosity with irrelevant content, serves to prevent disadvantages in terms of social status, power or reputation with third parties. What is socially expected is still achievable. People often trust that the other party will still be interested enough to communicate "reasonably" again. There is no doubt that this will is sufficient. If a deficiency is perceived, it is justified as a reaction to the opponent's dangerousness. The relationship is characterised by reservations.

In reality, the discussion – intensifies or is left alone, depending on the context and degree of social connection (marriage, employment, etc.). Increasingly, however, people assure third parties that they are not entirely wrong. This is rarely an expression of a serious, objective examination of one's own point of view, but rather an assurance that others "see things the same way". However, making contact with third parties does not yet serve to form a coalition. Nevertheless, the first "control manoeuvres" can already be seen as "Preparation for the troop collection" can be started.

Actions instead of words (3rd phase)

If mistrust grows, the other person's behaviour is interpreted increasingly negatively. Words no longer have a guiding effect. Action must be taken to guide the other person. Territories must be demarcated, be it through decisions or by otherwise finalising facts. That is the mindset. And the approach.

The fatal thing about this is that the lack of words does not make one's own actions any clearer, but instead directly increases the room for interpretation. This gives the other person easier access to the scope for incorrect interpretations. Intention and effect clearly diverge here - as is generally the case in conflict situations. But discussions of clarification are avoided with pinpoint accuracy. This is what Karl-Heinz Risto aptly the "autistic circle process" calls.

In the silencing of the opponents, the conflict reaches a new quality. For the first time, the participants get rid of their most human tool: language. As clear and unambiguous language is an expression of inner clarity, but is avoided here, misunderstandings are inevitable: From now on, the autopilot takes over.

The very thing that is needed here is being avoided: Not more communication, but meta-communication that draws in constructive feedback loops.

LEVEL II (WIN-LOSE)

Image concerns and coalition building (4th phase)

As the actions do not achieve what they are supposed to, the parties to the conflict doubt even more - and, from their point of view, consequently - that an amicable solution can be found. The other party seems unreasonable and without any goodwill, which was so "clearly expressed" by their own side. The song of disappointment is sung on all sides. Third parties are now increasingly coming into focus. They are affected by the conflict and drawn away from their supposed position as observers. They expand the sphere of influence and thus open up to his "Swirl effect" the gates.

Although third parties should initially "express their opinion without bias", they should ultimately strengthen their own position. This shows who is suitable for (later) coalitions. Third parties can hardly be questioned impartially by those involved in the conflict.

The outward orientation and the search for allies is the fruit of a process of perception and interpretation that usually began almost imperceptibly: A kind of new remembrance. Although we often imagine that reminders are like retrieving a file from a hard drive, this is not the case. Memory always reflects the presentis an actualising process that has nothing to do with fixed content. The content of memory is related to time and context, which is why it is possible to look for "signs" and "clues" in retrospect that heralded the threat and the disaster. This kind of "overlooking" now appears to have been a kind of leap of faith in the other side, a sign of one's own good nature or stupidity, or at any rate proof of one's own Victim status or the slyness and cunning of the opponent (Perpetrator status). You can choose to use both together.

The new way of remembering leads to Clichés and stereotypes. The opponent "receives" a complete and seamless, but simple concept of his person, which has less to do with facts and more to do with one-sided interpretation.

The decisive factor is that from now on Enemy images exist. They can be dealt with in a completely different way.

Loss of face (5th phase)

Enemy images lead to a feeling of threat. On both sides. Above all, social standing is under threat and a "loss of face" is feared. This is why social prestige is both the favoured target and object of protection at this stage. The central emotions of the conflict parties at this stage are almost all shades of fear. In general, our emotions are directly involved in the destructive development of conflict. But the Fear of social exclusion and social annihilation determines how we think and act in a conflict more than almost any other emotion. Fear is the breeding ground for further conflict escalation and, at this level, the key to understanding. If fear relates to social marginalisation and annihilation scenarios, it leads to psychological catastrophic situations that can bring us illness and death ("voodoo" and "bullying" situations).

By tearing the "mask off the face" of the opponent and exposing their true identity and deviousness and showing it to the world, one's own part can seem more than small. The focus is on the depraved personality of the other person. Third parties must be protected from this. Public Unmasking serves as preventive emergency aid. Ingeniously consistent and yet mostly consistently wrong.

In any case, the original conflict issues are increasingly receding into the background. In any case, they only serve to assess the personality of the opponent ("Personification"). The opponent's proposals and arguments are no longer unacceptable, the whole person is. It is not the statement that is wrong and unacceptable, but the person making it.

Threats (6th phase)

Once the shared history has been reinterpreted and seen in a new light, ruthless attacks are justified and legal, even in the face of one's own value system. The conflict now appears as Self-defence situation. Ruthlessness is not only permitted, it is necessary and required. It is worth noting that future ruthlessness is a result of the extensive review results. Although this consideration opens up new insights, it excludes much of what was previously valid. This results in self-fulfilling prophecies (self-fulfilling prophecies). They come to life above all in threats that now hit the opponents directly.

The communication of accusations turns into a Threat communication around. The inner threat gives way to one's own menace, attack is the best defence. This is the misconception at this point. But few things are more stupid than threats. They rarely stop the escalation and are hardly able to regain control. The only thing that makes them the means of choice is their seductive nature to bring the overall situation back under control.

In reality, however, they only put the threatener in trouble: he must then - and usually reluctantly - prove his credibility and carry out the announced evil. Very rarely, however, does the intended effect materialise. In contrast to warnings, the threatener pretends to hold the realisation of the evil in their hands - and to use it "if the other person does not…"! That is the fatal aspect of a threat. It is self-binding and therefore the complete opposite of the intention expressed.

LEVEL III (LOSE-LOSE)

Limited retaliatory strikes (7th phase)

This need to make good on a threat leads to violence. Violence is also always a reaction in conflicts. As a result, threatening communication grows into Power communication. And that means Demonstration of power.

The threat has a punitive effect and is intended to do so, but it is by no means destructive. That is not the point yet, but first of all it is about education! The punitive moment comes across as an attempt at correction – in three respects: firstly, the other person is punished for not heeding the threat, then for being responsible for the conflict as a whole and, in connection with this, for being to blame for the fact that the punisher "had to go so far himself … and violence became necessary".

In the self-image, the violence is of course only a consequence - as already mentioned, but necessary to prove one's own consistency and straightforwardness. It is precisely this that does not end the escalation, but regularly drives it forward. Mediation is almost overwhelmed here.

Fragmentation (8th phase)

Once the The logic of violence The fact that the opponent himself does not react as desired to violence opens the door to his destruction and final elimination. Initially, the only limit is one's own (social) will to survive. Nevertheless, the target of the attacks is the opponent's centres: his (social) basis of life is attacked, e.g. by cutting off the supply routes (isolation).

Total annihilation: Together into the abyss (9th phase)

Ultimately, however, one's own survival is no longer the decisive factor. The destruction of the enemy is the goal, even at the cost of one's own life. Mutual and yet joint, i.e. total annihilation is heralded ("Patent solution" in the sense of Watzlawick).

And here it becomes clear that the destructive development of conflict is also the Common does not go unnoticed, but rather emphasises it. Even steadily deeper involvement ultimately brings resolution in the form of joint destruction.

The escalation model of Glasl shows that the conflict does not just happen, but that the Litigate against himPhase by phase, they "decide" to walk the path into the abyss together. The escalation of conflict described here is not without a certain irony, as the participants believed themselves to be so different and yet together they shape the path to the common abyss.

Fragment No. 51 from Heraclitus

"They do not understand how it can be carried apart with itself in mind: opposing union like that of the bow and the lyre."

And yet it is also true that there are times (and opponents!) when the path into the abyss seems to be the only right one - and only the hope of not having to go all the way, because together we are more powerful in opposition. But perhaps this is just ideology, a pious wish.

Sometimes power is not the worst alternative.

The model presented can provide the following points of reference for conflict management: