BRIGITTE: Mr. Glasl, you have been dealing with conflicts as a scientist and consultant for 48 years and say that everyone – whether between two countries or among colleagues – follows a similar pattern.
Friedrich Glasl: In every conflict – whether private, professional, national or global – there are moments when the situation changes dramatically. Suddenly there seem to be new rules. Things that were previously prohibited are now allowed. As if one opponent said to the other: So far I've held back, but if you cross that line, we'll meet again on another level. This change of rules happens unspoken, simply by doing.
Can you give an example of this?
Most of the time, you only argue about one or two things at first. It is still quite normal. The Ukraine conflict was initially only about the association agreement with the EU. But then suddenly more and more topics come up. I call this the controversy avalanche: it is as if the controversy infected each other. This is exactly what makes the opponents aggressive at some point. And now the rules are changing: From now on, both will resort to the simplification mechanism. If the other person is not open to my good arguments, then I just paint everything in black and white. It's obviously too stupid, you have to help, right? But that's how you make the other one pretty small. That is a big mistake.
According to your often cited model, there are nine levels of conflict escalation. Which level is the one just described?
That was just number two. It starts right from level three. I call that "action instead of words". The opponents no longer believe that you can still reach the other with words. They also think they can make things worse by talking. People have often argued. So now they do what they themselves are convinced of and they present the opposite side with accomplished facts. The man suddenly allows the son to go alone with the expensive sneakers, the woman spontaneously goes to the sea with the children over the weekend without telling him. As a rule, the counterparties can no longer resolve conflicts from level three alone. At level four, they then involve more and more friends and acquaintances in the argument because they need allies. You dismantle each other in the circle of friends by pointing out the weaknesses and mistakes of the other.
At what level does it become dangerous?
At levels five and six, we increasingly demonize the other. It is reduced to its reprehensible sides. Public insults and insults are no longer slips, but intentional. As a mediator, it is always shattering to see this happen. In a miraculous way, this distorted opinion that we now have of the other seems to be confirmed again and again. This is because perception is already impaired. Psychologists call this mechanism self-fulfilling prophecy. The opponents paradoxically maneuver each other into the extreme roles they actually fight each other. The more authoritarian the students find the teacher, the more they unconsciously challenge exactly this behavior.
And is it getting worse?
Level six starts with threats and blackmail attempts: If you don't give in, I'll go – and I'll take the kids with me. At level seven there are the first, but at this stage still limited damage. In companies, they now make documents disappear, data is deleted, emails are faked to harm the other. Often there are even blunders. Level eight: The enemy has become such a great and hated threat that you want to destroy it, economically, materially, psychologically. At the final stage, level nine, this goal has become so important that you would risk your own downfall. In the film "The War of the Roses", this is the last scene when the couple crashes together with the chandelier.
Have you ever had a conflict that went up to level nine?
This is regularly the case in wars. But I also know it from some commercial companies. At that time I was advising a bank that worked with two entrepreneurs: a couple who had built up an empire of companies with many branches; I will not name any names now. The marriage broke up, now the assets should be unbundled. But neither wanted to make any concessions to the other. And they knew each other for so long that they knew exactly which buttons to press. They were multimillionaires – in the end both slipped into social assistance.
Wasn't that just two psychopaths?
No, absolutely not. These conflict mechanisms can affect everyone. No one is immune from it. It is mainly because people tend to justify their own behavior in front of themselves. They say to themselves: I have a good reason to be angry with others. They feel compelled to act and think that others act – they themselves only react.
And then it's not about the matter anymore?
That's never what escalated conflicts are about. Even if it initially looks as if you are actually just arguing in the office about the joint project or in a marriage about furnishing the new house. The real question is: how do I deal with the differences between people and their opinions? If I think I have leased the truth and cannot stand it at all if the other person sees it differently – then conflicts quickly arise. Conflicts always arise from the inability of at least one party to see differences as enrichment. Am I scratched at my self-worth by the other values and perspectives? It's all about this. The less self-confidence, the more I fight for my path – such people define themselves by denying everything else.
How do you prevent conflicts?
By representing your interests, but without devaluing and attacking others. Stay factual. In a quarrel, you never hit the man, so to speak, but only the ball. And if the other attacks you, you draw a line. You can draw boundaries without striking back by saying: Stop, not with me, that's going too far for me now. And by making it clear to myself: the point here is not to win the argument, but to gain respect. The other person has to realize that he cannot do this to me.
So kicking back is always wrong?
At least it's always a sign of weakness. Especially when I react without thinking about it for long. Then the other can manipulate me. And if he just has to push this button and then the whole defense program runs for me – then I'm in his hand. Because then I lost my self-control. And the loss of self-control is the beginning of the escalation.
But what do you do when you are already in the middle of an escalation?
First of all, you have to understand that you yourself are a perpetrator. I once coached a surgeon who was marginalized in his hospital. And he always believed that he hadn't contributed anything at all. Nothing. At some point he admitted: Well, I said something there, I probably provoked a little there. You always have to ask yourself, maybe I unconsciously trigger something in the other?
And what exactly do I do in such conflict situations?
That depends on the level of conflict you are at. In the beginning it is important not to just swallow everything. Do things that provoke others. Then you can start talking about it. It is always better than silence. And when you finally talk to your partner again, talk about what drives each other into anger. Explain yourself. Say: I only wanted this and that, but I take note that it triggers this and that for you. But then I also have to stand by the fact that I wanted to set a limit for the other person. Just don't talk nice, then you get the impression of a lie. It is not easy to have such conversations. But dare. The ancient Greeks knew that the fear of battle is always greater than the fear of battle.
But after a certain degree of mistrust, you no longer believe anything at all. What should such talks bring then?
The demonization of the other indeed starts early. At the beginning you still sway back and forth, from level six the other has become very angry and black. The partners must then remember the light sides of this person who is their enemy today. Have you ever had good times together? What was lovable about this person – and maybe still is? And both have to make themselves clear: the other struggles just as much, is torn between love and hate, between affection and contempt as you are yourself. The first thing to do is to see the light again. Then you can work on the individual conflicts.
Friedrich Glasl, 76, was born in Vienna. The conflict researcher studied psychology and political science, did his doctorate on international conflict prevention and habilitated with a focus on conflict research. Glasl lives in Salzburg and works for the company Trigon Development Consulting, which he co-founded.
Do you want more mindfulness in everyday life? You can find more articles on the subject here. -> mindfulness