The conflict ladder: from disagreement to locked conflict
How the inspection protects the customer
Most conflicts start as a normal professional disagreement. Two colleagues see a task, decision or work process differently. This is healthy and perfectly natural — different perspectives often make solutions better. The problem arises when the disagreement is no longer about the matter but about the people. Austrian organizational theorist Friedrich Glasl has described how this development typically happens in a model known as the conflict escalation ladder.
§Nine steps three levels
Glasl's model describes nine steps in an escalating conflict, grouped into three levels. At the first level — often called win-win — the parties are still able to see each other as reasonable opponents and seek a solution where both come off well. At the second level — win-lose — the parties can no longer talk alone; they seek support from others, and a division into "us" and "them" emerges. At the third level — lose-lose — the image of the opponent is distorted into an enemy image, and the goal is no longer to win, but to harm the other, even if it costs oneself.
| Level | What characterises the |
|---|---|
| 1. Win-win (discussion) | Disagreement on the matter. The parties are still seeking a solution both can live with. |
| 2. Win-lose (conflict) | The dialogue breaks down. People seek allies and think in groups |
| 3. Lose-lose (war) | The counterpart is perceived as the enemy. Damage to the other weighs heavier than own gain |
§Why is it harder to turn around?
The model's most important point is that each step up the ladder makes it harder to go down again. Conflicts do not escalate smoothly and linearly — they become gradually more locked in because more is at stake at each step: face, position, alliances. What could be resolved with an open conversation at step two often requires a third party at step six just to be able to meet.
Signs that a disagreement is becoming something more
- 01The conversation is more about who is right than about what is the best solution
- 02One begins to talk about the other in the third person to colleagues instead of directly
- 03"Camps" form where others are asked to choose sides
- 04Tone changes from factual to personal — remarks on character rather than action
§What can you do yourself in the early stages?
At step one and two, the most effective intervention is often a direct, calm conversation where you return to the matter: what are we really disagreeing about and what could a solution look like that we both can live with? This requires that you dare to have the conversation before it grows bigger in the corners.
§When should a manager or third party come in?
When the parties can no longer speak to each other—typically from step four and up—it's time to involve a manager, a union representative, or in serious cases a professional conflict mediator. The longer the conflict has been allowed to escalate, the more structured the intervention must be because the parties can no longer trust each other's intentions without outside help.
The conflict's cost for the rest of the team
A compact driving plan over the course as a service assistant — from basic course to choice of speciality and final exam — so you easily see where you are and what awaits.
The conflict ladder is not a tool to avoid all disagreement — that would be neither possible nor desirable. It is a tool to recognise where you are and act while it is still manageable to find a common understanding.