The Conflict Escalation Model - How Conflicts Accelerate!

The conflict escalation model is a well-known and widespread model that describes how a conflict can escalate.

There are several versions of this model, but the most well-known one has nine steps and was created by the Austrian conflict researcher Friedrich Glasl.

However, most organizations today use a shortened and slightly more practically oriented version with 7 steps, which is also the one we will present here. The model of conflict escalation provides a fairly good and simple overview of how a conflict can develop if it is allowed to spiral negatively.

The colors mentioned for each of the seven steps below can be compared to a traffic light or warning lights: green light is fine, yellow light is a warning, and red light is a crisis.

The Conflict Escalation Model with red, yellow, and green steps. This model provides an overview of how a conflict can develop if allowed to escalate.

Step 1 (Green): Disagreement

“We have different opinions on this!”
There is a disagreement. Each party argues their case logically, presents their viewpoints, and allows the other party to do the same. If the parties can find a good solution that both can live with – or at least “agree to disagree” – the conflict stops at this stage, and a good relationship is maintained.

Example of dialogue at the first green step on the conflict escalation ladder: Disagreement!

Step 2 (Yellow): Blaming the Other Person (Personalization)

“It’s your fault!”
This is a very critical step on the conflict escalation model because it is here that reason slowly evaporates, and the focus begins to shift negatively onto the other person rather than the issue.

Emotions come into play, and the parties start accusing, condemning, and blaming each other while fervently defending themselves.

Seen from ‘above’ or from an overall perspective, the crucial point occurs exactly when it is no longer about the topic or the issue but becomes about persons and identity.

As soon as identity enters the discussion, it takes on an existential twist, meaning the parties start to feel that it is about the right to be who they are, to hold the opinions they have, and ultimately, in the extreme, the right to exist.

When this happens, things start to go downhill rapidly.

Step number 2 in the conflict model: "Blaming the Other (personification)".

Step 3 (Yellow): The Problem Is Growing

“There was also that time when … and by the way, you also …!”
Where in step 2 of the conflict escalation model it became personal, the problem now expands to relate to many other things as well.

It can be old conflicts that flare up again or other issues that one might have been annoyed about for some time. One might also involve other people in an attempt to “be right.”

The third step on the conflict escalation model illustrates what happens when the problem escalates.

Step 4 (Yellow): Conversation Is Abandoned

“This is futile and pointless!”
At this step in the model of conflict escalation, the parties begin to give up on talking their way to a solution. Each party feels that the other party is no longer listening, and they themselves only listen selectively for anything that supports their negative view of the other person.

Conversations are now too unpleasant and unproductive to be worthwhile. This step is crucial, as after this, the conversation is abandoned – thus, the immediate opportunity to resolve the conflict is lost, leading to outright hostility.

At the fourth step on the conflict model, communication is dropped.

Step 5 (Red): Images of an Enemy

“He’s a complete idiot!”
At this point the emotional distance between the parties has grown so large that all empathy for the other person has vanished, replaced by unnuanced anger.

The other is now more of a ‘thing’ than a person. Everything is seen in black and white, and it is now about justifying oneself when talking about the other: to win or to be right.

At the fifth step on the conflict ladder, people begin to create antagonistic images of each other.

Step 6 (Red): Open Hostility

“Don’t you think what he’s doing is completely wrong?”
Now early warfare begins where the parties start attacking, harassesing, setting traps, or bullying each other. The anger has reached a bitter point where the other person must be brought down. The parties may start seeking alliances or support for their viewpoints.

At step six on the conflict escalation model, open hostility arises between the parties.

Step 7 (Red): Polarization

“We have to go our separate ways!”
The parties now realize that they can no longer be in proximity to each other at all. They must part ways.

In the best-case scenario, the conflict ends here. In the worst-case scenario, the struggle continues from a distance.

The seventh step illustrates polarization. The parties must be separated.

If the parties actually need each other because, for example, they are close family, work together, or share a child, they face a serious challenge … and have every reason to do their best to resolve the conflict.

Nothing is Lost … Not Even If You’ve Reached a Red Step on the Conflict Escalation Model

Most people who seek conflict resolution come to us when they are close to one side or the other of the yellow-red boundary on the model of conflict escalation.

Communication has become very difficult and strained, or has outright stopped. Each party has created narratives about the other and struggles to see how reconciliation is possible.

BUT as long as there is a genuine desire for a constructive solution, it is never too late, no matter how far up the conflict escalation model you may have climbed. Therefore, conflict resolution fundamentally comes down to intention and will: Do you want to find a solution? Or simply: Do YOU want a solution?

The rather surprising fact is that as long as just one party genuinely desires a solution, there is a good chance that together we can get very close to finding one that works for everyone – and then bring the other party on board.

For even though conflicts typically involve many different aspects, they are fundamentally based on one thing: the parties’ consciousness. And consciousness influences awareness, so when one party in a conflict becomes clear, it becomes much easier for the other party to do the same.