Find Mediators Near You:

Glasl’s Nine-Stage Model Of Conflict Escalation

This conflict escalation model is presented in Friedrich Glasl’s book
Konfliktmanagement. Ein Handbuch für Führungskräfte, Beraterinnen und
Berater, (Bern: Paul Haupt Verlag, 1997. See also the endnotes). Glasl’s
original analysis of the stages comprises over 70 pages, and my summary does
not in any way make full justice to his model. However, this summary has
been scrutinized and approved of (with some corrections) by Friedrich Glasl.

Glasl’s escalation model is a very useful diagnostic tool for the conflict
facilitator, but also valuable as a means for sensitizing people to the
mechanisms of conflict escalation. Such sensitizing may lead to a greater
awareness of the steps one should take care to avoid if one wants to prevent
a conflict from escalating out of control. In a more academic perspective,
the model also provides a theory of conflict escalation that emphasizes the
situational pressures acting upon people involved in a conflict. Rather than
seeking causes in the individuals, the model emphasizes how there is an
internal logic to conflict relationships, stemming from the failure of
“benign” ways of handling contradictory interests and standpoints. Conscious
efforts are needed in order to resist the escalation mechanisms, which are
seen as having a momentum of their own.


The first stage of conflict escalation develops when a difference over some
issue or frustration in a relationship proves resilient to resolution
efforts. The problem remains, and leads to irritation. Repeated efforts to
overcome the difficulties fail, which means that the natural flow of
shifting concerns is blocked. The parties are repeatedly reminded that in a
particular field, they are not getting forward. Interests and opinions
crystallize into standpoints, i.e. fixed positions on how a certain issue
ought to be handled. These standpoints tend to become mutually incompatible
in the perception of the conflict parties.

The standpoints attract adherents, and groups start to form around certain
positions, or for and against a certain standpoint. In the next stage these
groups are increasingly consolidated into more and more welldelimited
parties. Boundaries defining who belongs to the inside and the outside
become more and more visible. The members of a party develop a shared
interpretation of the situation, creating a common selective filter
affecting the perception of all relevant information. Members of one party
readily pick up negative information about the other party. These pieces of
information are given great significance, whereas positive information is
not registered. Differences between the parties appear more significant than

The frustrated efforts to overcome the differences lead to development of
habitual behavioural patterns for acting in strained situations. When no
progress is made, the parties become increasingly aware of the mutual
dependencies they cannot evade. Interactions with the other side are
disappointing, and are perceived as a waste of time and energy. Even though
the other party is perceived as stubborn and unreasonable, the persons
involved are still committed to try to resolve the differences. However, as
the efforts prove fruitless, the parties start to doubt that the counterpart
sincerely wants to solve the problems. They may also start suspecting that
some ulterior motives may be involved.

The communication between the parties is still based on mutuality: the basic
status of the involved persons as responsible human beings is recognized,
and one tries to be fair in the interactions.

The treshold to stage 2 is taken when one or both parties lose(-s) faith in
the possibility of solving the problems through straight and fair
discussions. When straight argumentation is abandoned in favour of tactical
and manipulative argumentative tricks, the conflict slips into stage 2.


Since the counterpart doesn’t seem amenable to sensible arguments,
discussions tend to develop into verbal confrontations. The parties look for
more forceful ways of pushing through their standpoints. In order to gain
strength, they tend to become increasingly locked into inflexible
standpoints. The dispute is no longer restricted only to a well-defined
issue, but the parties start to feel that their general position is at
stake. This means that they divert more and more attention to how they
appear: being successful, strong and skilful rather than compliant, insecure
and incompetent. Debates are no longer only focussed on which standpoint has
more merits, but also on who is most successful in promoting the
standpoints, and how the outcomes of the debates affect one’s reputation.
Accumulating tactical advantages over the counterpart becomes an important

When rational and issue-relevant arguments don’t suffice to ensure success,
the parties resort to “quasi-rational” argumentation, such as:

  • Bickering about the underlying causes of the present problems, in order to
    avoid blame;
  • Strong exaggeration of the implications and consequences of the
    counterpart’s position, in order to present it as absurd;
  • Suggestive comments about the relation of the central issue with other
    concerns, linking the issue to larger value considerations.
  • Reference to recognized authorities or tradition in order to gain
    legitimacy for a standpoint;
  • Stating the alternatives as extremes, in order to get the opponent to
    accept a “reasonable compromise.”

These tactical tricks aim at keeping the counterpart off balance emotionally
or at gaining the upper hand in a skirmish. The centre of gravity of the
verbal interactions therefore shift from rational arguments towards emotions
and relative power issues. The parties can no longer assume that words mean
what they seem to mean, but have to look for veiled meanings and
consequences. This introduces a strong propensity of mistrust in the
relationships. The parties expect each other to try to gain advantages at
the other’s expense. To the extent that one party succeeds in gaining such
advantages, the other is increasingly vexed, and starts looking for ways of
compensating for them. Every statement and action gets additional
significance, namely in terms of how they affect the reputation and relative
position of the actor. It is risky to do something that might look like
yielding or weakness, therefore neither side shies away from hard
confrontations. Discussions turn into debates, where inflexible standpoints
collide with each other. However, at stage 2 the parties are still partly
committed to common goals and interests, and tend to vacillate between
cooperation and competition.

The growing mistrust creates a sense of insecurity and loss of control. The
parties try to compensate for this by an increased emphasis on a self-image
as righteous and strong. Aggressive actions serve at this stage mostly to
boost self-esteem, and to make an impression on the counterpart. Sincere
efforts to control the counterpart belong to later escalation stages.

The frustrating experiences lead to the build-up of tensions, which are
often discharged in outbursts. Such acts serve as valves for letting out
pressure, but do not involve any real problem-solving. Repeated experiencies
of the counterpart lead to the formation of images of typical behaviour
patterns. However, these images are not yet as global and as stereotypical
as the enemy images of stage 4.

The treshold to stage 3 is related to the basic right of each party to be
heard in matters of mutual interest. When one party feels that further
talking is useless, and start acting without consulting the other side, the
conflict slips into stage 3.


At stage 3, the parties no longer believe that further talk will resolve
anything, and they shift their attention to actions. Common interests and
the prospect of resuming cooperation recede into the background, and the
parties see each other as competitors. The sense of being blocked by the
counterpart is paramount, and the dependencies linking oneself to the other
part are felt as extremely vexing. The antagonists therefore seek to replace
the mutual dependencies with unilateral dependency, in order to be able to
dominate the counterpart. The most important goal at this stage is to block
the counterpart from reaching his goal, and to push through one’s own

By unilateral action, the parties hope to force the counterpart to yield,
but they would themselves under no circumstances want to be seen yielding
for the pressure from the counterpart. Since one can no longer trust what is
stated verbally, action and non-verbal communication dominate the course of
events. This tends to speed up the escalation process.

Within each party the pressure to conform to a common attitude and a common
interpretation increases. Images, attitudes and interpretations tend to be
reduced to the simplest common denominator, which leads to a far-reaching
loss of differentiation. The feeling of unity and shared predicament is
strong, further reducing the capacity to relate to the concerns and
perspective of the other side. Since verbal communication is reduced and
untrustworthy, there are few opportunities to get genuine feed-back on the
stereotypical images and interpretations the parties make up about each
other’s patterns of behaviour and presumed intentions. Fantasies about
possible motives and hidden strategies can develop unchecked.

The feeling of being blocked is further increased by the limited possibility
genuine verbal communication. The parties start to see themselves as being
held captives by external circumstances they cannot control. They therefore
tend to deny responsibility for the course of events. An increasing part of
their own actions are regarded as necessary responses to the behaviour of
the other side.

The treshold to stage 4 is veiled attacks on the counterpart’s social
reputation, general attitude, position and relationship to others. “Deniable
punishment behaviour” (see below) is a characteristic sign of slipping into
stage 4.


At stage 4 the conflict is no longer about concrete issues, but about
victory or defeat. Defending one’s reputation is a major concern.

The “typicals” that evolved at stage 2 and 3 are now consolidated and
complemented into full-blown general and consistent images of the
counterpart. These images are stereotypical, highly fixed and are very
resilient to change through new information. Such images serve an important
role in providing a sense of orientation: one has the feeling of knowing
what to expect from the environment. Conflict parties start to attribute
collective characteristics both to members of the other side and to ingroup
members. Individuals are perceived to have certain characteristics (such as
unreliability, incompetence, bossiness, etc.) only by virtue of belonging to
a specific group.

The negative other-image comprises prejudices and attributions of motives
and intentions, but does not yet, as in stage 5, deny the basic moral
integrity of the counterpart as someone deserving to be treated justly (see
below). The negative images are now screens that occupy the field of vision
whenever the parties meet each other. These screens prevent the parties from
seeing each other’s true complexity and individuality. No side accepts the
image presented of them by the other side. The other side’s image is
vehemently rejected, but at the same time each party tries to get the other
side to recognize their own other-image. A salient symptom of stage 4
dynamics is the difficulty of the parties to mention positive qualities of
the counterpart when asked by a facilitator. The other side is thought of as
uneducable: “Such people are unable to change.”

The power of the stereotypes also leads to a subtle pressure on each party
to conform to roles assigned to them. It can be very difficult to escape
such behaviour expectations. Both parties now feel that their behaviour is a
reaction to the counterpart’s actions and intentions, and don’t feel
responsible for the further escalation of the conflict.

The interactions are permeated with efforts to find gaps in the behavioural
norms in order to inflict harm on the counterpart. The rules are adhered to
formally, but any opportunity to get away with unfriendly acts are used. A
typical form of interactions at this stage is “deniable punishment
behaviour.” The counterpart is provoked, insulted and criticized, but in
forms that do not formally infringe on the etiquette. Blows can be dealt
through insinuations, ambiguous comments, irony and body language, but the
perpetrator can flatly deny that any harm was intended, if challenged.
However, since the other party can not respond by openly discussing the
incident, retaliatory action is very likely to ensue. The veiled nature of
the attacks prevents a dramatic public loss of face (see stage 5).

In this stage, the parties actively try to enlist support from bystanders.
Actions to enhance one’s image in the eyes of others are planned and
implemented. The parties also consciously seek to stage their confrontations
in public, in order to recruit supporters.

The conflict activities are now focussed on affecting the counterpart and
gaining the upper hand in the power struggle, rather than achieving
issue-related results. Attacks are made on the identity, attitude,
behaviour, position and relationships of the counterpart. The causes of the
conflict are no longer seen in terms of incompatible standpoints, but as
rooted in the very character of the counterpart.

The treshold to stage 5 is constituted by acts that lead to a public loss of
face for one or both parties. If the basic honour of someone is offended
repeatedly and deliberately, in particular in a public setting, the conflict
is highly likely to slip into stage 5.


The transition to stage 5 is particularly dramatic. The word “face”
signifies here the basic status a person has in a community of people. As
long as a person is regarded as a respectable citizen, he or she has an
intact “face,” and is entitled to fair treatment and respect. The “face” is
reproduced by the members of a group, by their avoiding any overt actions
that challenge the basic status a person has. The “face” is hurt by public
events, not by private gossip or individual opinions. Loss of face means
that the conflict parties feel that they have suddenly seen through the mask
of the other party, and discovered an immoral, insane or criminal inside.
The transformation of the image one party hold of the other is radical. It
is not an expansion of the old biased image, but is felt as a sudden insight
into the true, and very different, nature of the other. The whole conflict
history is now reinterpreted: one feels that the other side has followed a
consequent and immoral strategy from the very beginning. All their
“constructive” moves were only deceptive covers for their real intentions.
There is no longer ambiguity, but everything appears clear.

The images and positions the parties hold are no longer regarded in terms of
superiority and inferiority, but in terms of angels and devils. One’s own
side is a representative of the good forces in the world, whereas the other
side represents the destructive, subhuman, and bestial forces. The
counterpart is no longer only annoying, but an incarnation of moral
corruption. A palpable sign of this stage is when a party feels bodily
nauseated in the presence of the other. In stage 4, the image of the
counterpart was built up of elements depicting the incompetence and the
irritating behaviours of the other. In stage 5 the image of the counterpart
centers on the moral inferiority attributed to the other. The conflict is no
longer about concrete issues, but about the prevalence or not of holy

The transformation of the image of the other side drastically increases the
role of negative expectations and suspiciousness. All seemingly constructive
moves of the counterpart are dismissed as deceptions, while one single
negative incident is conclusive proof of the true nature of the other. This
leads to a situation where it is extremely difficult to build mutual
confidence. The gestures needed for establishing minimal trust in the
sincerity of the other side become extreme, and are often felt to be
humiliating. For example, in order to prove a sincere constructive
intention, one side might be asked to make a public apology for past
statements. However, the parties often fear that such concessions would be
interpreted as weakness or culpability, and that they would further damage
one’s public status. In this deadlock, denigrating the other side may be the
only visible option for gaining a moral upper hand.

Incidents leading to loss of face are usually followed by dedicated attempts
by the parties to rehabilitate their public reputation of integrity and
moral credibility. Such efforts may now dominate the conflict process. Loss
of face, and ensuing retaliatory acts often isolate the conflict parties
from bystanders. This may further exacerbate the escalation mechanisms,
because the opportunities for getting tempering feedback about the conflict
are reduced.

The treshold to stage 6 is felt to be less dramatic than to stage 5. When
the parties start to issue ultimata and strategical threats, the conflict
enters stage 6.


Since no other way seems to be open, the conflict parties resort to threats
of damaging actions, in order to force the counterpart in the desired
direction. The strategical threats of stage 6 are very different from the
deniable punishment actions characteristic of stage 4. The latter mainly
serve the function of giving vent to pent-up frustrations. Strategical
threats are actively used in order to force the counterpart to certain

There are three phases in the increase of issuing strategical threats:

1. The parties issue mutual threats in order to show that they will not
retreat. The threatening party wants: (a) to draw attention to themselves
and their demands; (b) to demonstrate autonomy and ability to form the
agenda; and (c) to get the counterpart to conform with a specific demand or
norm by issuing a threat of sanctions.

2. In the next phase the threats are made more concrete, unequivocal and
firm. The parties make dedicated statements of self-commitment from which
they cannot retreat without losing credibility, in order to enhance the
seriousness of their threats.

3. In the third phase, the threats are formulated as ultimata, where the
counterpart is forced to an either-or decision.

One consequence of this dynamic is that the parties increasingly lose
control over the course of events. By their own actions they create a
pressure to act rapidly and radically.

The perception of the situation becomes increasingly out of touch with
reality. The threatening party sees only its own demands, and regards the
threat as a necessary deterrence in order to block the counterpart from
using violence. One expects the other party to yield to the pressure. The
threathened party, however, sees the damaging consequences if the threat
becomes reality, and rallies to issue a counterthreat. Feelings of being
powerless lead to fear and possibly uncontrollable rage.

In this phase, the conflict becomes increasingly complex, difficult to
grasp, and impossible to control. By their actions, the parties introduce
time pressure on each other’s actions, and thereby curtail their
possibilities to weigh the consequences of alternative courses of action in
a turbulent and chaotic environment. In order to retain some measure of
control, each party insists that its own issues and standpoints must be
dealt with in exactly the form they have chosen to present them.

The behaviour is to an increasing extent prone to be ruled by panicky
impulses. Any action that seems to promise a powerful effect is attractive.
In this stage, taking one’s grievances to the media is a common occurrence.

Any threat strategy relies on credibility in order to be successful. Parties
issuing threats must therefore try to convince the other party and
bystanders that the threat is real and serious. In order to enhance the
credibility of a threat, one may act so as to bind oneself publicly to
execute the threats if the other party does not yield. Public declarations,
or smaller doses of aggressive acts may be used to prop up the credibility
of a threat. The other party regards this as proof of the aggressive
intentions and capabilities of the counterpart, and seeks countermeasures.
By binding themselves to threat strategies, the parties heavily restrict
their own freedom of choosing alternative courses of action.

A serious risk in stage 6 is that stress, uncontrollable aggressive actions,
and increasing turbulence and complexity lead to disintegration of the
parties into smaller units acting autonomously. When this happens, not even
binding agreements between the main actors may stop the destructiveness.

The treshold to stage 7 is the fear of the consequences that might ensue if
the threats are carried out. When the parties actively seek to harm the
other side’s sanction potential, the conflict transforms to stage 7. Threat
strategies only work as long as the parties believe that a threat may act
deterring. However, the very internal dynamics of stage 6 drive the parties
to translate the threats into action.


The threats of stage 6 undermine the basic sense of security of the parties.
Now they expect the counterpart to be capable of very destructive acts.
Securing one’s own further survival becomes an essential concern. It is no
longer possible to see a solution that includes the counterpart. The
counterpart is regarded as an impediment that must be eliminated by targeted
attacks aiming to maim the other. The counterpart is now a pure enemy, and
has no longer human qualities. No human dignity stands in the way of the
attacks, the enemy is just an object standing in the way. This may go as far
as using words like “eliminate” and “exterminate” when discussing what to

The attacks target the sanctions potential of the enemy, such as destroying
or undermining the counterpart’s financial resources, juridical status or
control functions. Fear and stress lead to forceful attacks, which are seen
as extreme, or at least heavily exaggerated, by the counterpart. The attacks
lead to retaliations, often even more destructive. In the frustrated
situation, attacks may generate feelings of being powerful and in control,
thus giving secondary benefits that reinforce further escalation. The
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.

The objectives now revolve around neutralising the firepower of the
counterpart, and thereby secure one’s own survival. Superiority is sought in
order to ensure ability to block the counterpart in a longer-term

There is no longer any real communication. At stage 6 the threat strategies
build upon at least a minimum of communication: one must know if the
counterpart rejects or accept an ultimatum. In stage 7 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. Threats followed by immediate
interruption of communication is a sign of stage 7 dynamics.

At this stage ethical norms are subsumed under more pressing concerns. At
earlier stages the parties exploited gaps in the norms, now they are cast
aside if they are bothersome. This is war, and normal rules do not apply.

The parties see that it is no longer possible to win. It is a lose-lose
struggle. Survival and less damage than the counterpart suffers are the main

The treshold to stage 8 is attacks that are directly aimed at the core of
the counterpart, attacks that are intended to shatter the enemy or destroy
his vital systems.


At this stage the attacks intensify and aim at destroying the vital systems
and the basis of power of the adversary. One may specifically aim at
fragmenting the counterpart into ineffectual splinters, and at the ability
of the counterpart to make decisions. Negotiators, representatives and
leaders may be targeted, in order to destroy their legitimacy and power in
their own camp. The system that keeps the counterpart coherent is attacked,
hoping that the very identity of the other side will crumble so that it
falls apart through its own internal contradictions and inherent centrifugal

When a party is attacked in a way that threatens to shatter it, it is forced
to make strong efforts to suppress internal conflicts. This increases the
stress and the internal pressure within the parties, and leads to an even
stronger pressure to undertake further attacks on the other side. The
parties fall apart into factions that fight each other, making the situation
completely uncontrollable.

The attacks on the counterpart targets all signs of vitality. The main
objective is now to destroy the existence basis of the adversary. The only
restraining factor is the concern for one’s own survival.

The treshold to stage 9 is reached when the self-preservation drive is given
up. When this happens, there is no check at all on further destructiveness.


In the last stage of conflict escalation, the drive to annihilate the enemy
is so strong that even the self-preservation instinct is neglected. Not even
one’s own survival counts, the enemy shall be exterminated even at the price
of destruction 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 total war of destruction
without scruples and remorse is waged. There are no innocent victims, no
neutral parties. The only remaining concern in the race towards the abyss is
to make sure that the enemy will fall too.


Glasl’s newest book is available in an English edition:
Confronting Conflict (Bristol: Hawthorn Press, 1999. ISBN 1 869 890 71X), in which a condensed version of his escalation model is presented and illustrated by two case examples: one conflict in a factory and one in a school. The full version of the conflict escalation model has only been published in German, however.
The latest edition of Glasl’s Konfliktmanagement (6th edition) was published
in 1999.

A review of the Glasl’s book was published as:

‘F. Glasl: Konfliktmanagement. Ein Handbuch für Führungskräfte, Beraterinnen
und Berater, ‘ review by Thomas Jordan in International Journal of Conflict
Management, vol 8:2, 1997, pp. 170-174.

A summary of the escalation model in English, written by Glasl himself, was
published as:

GLASL, F. (1982) ‘The process of conflict escalation and roles of third
parties,’ in G. B. J. Bomers and R. B. Peterson, (eds) Conflict management
and industrial relations, (pp. 119-140) The Hague: Kluwer Nijhoff


Thomas Jordan

Thomas Jordan is a Research Fellow of the Department of Human and Economic Geography in Gothenburg, Sweden where he teaches a course in Conflict Resolution. MORE >

Featured Members

View all

Read these next


Screen-2-Screen Mediation For Face-2-Face Mediators

In light of Vickie Pynchon's recent posts Negotiating by Email? Think Again! and More Dangers in Negotiating by Email, this online course on how to mediate by email looks interesting....

By Geoff Sharp

Book Review: Handbook of Positive Supervision for Supervisors, Facilitators, and Peer Groups

This book introduces us and gives the reader a taste of a unique form of supervision, based on positive psychology and solution-focused brief therapy, which have their philosophical roots in...

By Mieke Brandon

One Intriguing Reason it’s Hard to Take Responsibility for Problems

The next time someone declines to take responsibility for words or actions that had a bad impact, don’t immediately assume it’s a flaw in their character. Maybe it’s just their protective...

By Tammy Lenski