Past Conflict - Identify and Describe the Conflict Model

Introduction

In this assignment essay I will be describing a scenario from a past conflict and then proceed to identify and describe the conflict model I have chosen to analyze the conflict. The second part will consist of naming some skills and then how these skills can be applied. The final part of the essay will be the challenges I have faced during my attempt in applying these skills to my conflict.

Past Conflict

Sam is a 25-year-old male that experienced a past conflict in a workplace. It is a leadership and management type of conflict. Sam is constantly facing disagreements with Tim, who is also working in his company.  They have differing viewpoints and each time they interact things become more unpleasant. Recently, things escalated to a new level when Sam voiced his displeasure directly to Tim during a meeting and in front of their boss. A verbal fight ensued between the both of them and everyone in the company came to know about it. Sam and Tim were also vying for a position in the workplace at that. The endless fighting and chaos in the workplace eventually led to the boss demanding that Sam and Tim see him in his office. The two were reprimanded harshly and told that serious measures will be taken.

Causes of conflict

I decided to choose the Glasl's Nine Stage Model of escalation. An Austrian Professor named Freidrich Glasl in 1980s developed this model; it is about the dynamics of escalation and shows how a conflict will escalate until it pulls us down into the abyss, leaving a lose-lose situation for both parties.  The model displays how a conflict escalates deeper when the people involved are unaware of their actions.

This model aims to find out the level of escalation and decide how to transform conflicts. (“Conflict analysis tools”, n.d.)

The first stage is called Hardening; it develops when two individuals or parties have a different standpoint on an issue. The first confrontation is made here. Parties still believe that an argument can be solved here. This stage starts when a particular relationship between individuals isn't going anywhere even after countless efforts to resolve it. Both parties find each other's standpoints to be incompatible. (Jordan, T., 2000)

The second stage is called Debates and Polemics; it is the “polarization of thinking, feeling and will.” The parties see things in black and white. It will appear to them that the conflicting party does not respond well to reasoning, thus any discussion made between them turn into verbal confrontations. Superiority and inferiority also perceived here. Discussions turn argumentative and their standpoints will clash. Their commitment to common goals and interests are still present. (Jordan, T., 2000)

The third stage is called Actions, Not Words. In this stage the parties are all about action, not words.  Speaking to the other party does not help. Parties lose empathy for each other at this stage. They do not care as much about common interests and cooperating with the other party to resolve the issue. Parties see each other as competitors. The goal of this stage is to block the other party from attaining their goal, whereas they want to progress their interests. (Jordan, T., 2000)

The fourth stage is Image and Coalitions. Victory or defeat is the main concern. The parties will also be concerned about their reputation. The typical behavior that each party sees in their counterpart in stage two and three is now stronger and more defined. The parties see each other in a negative light. Each party will not accept what the other party thinks of them either. (Jordan, T., 2000)

The fifth stage is Loss of face. In this stage the parties may attempt to wreck each other's social reputation and eventually lead to one of them losing face. Someone's "face" represents the "basic status a person has in a community of people." If someone loses "face", it has to be in a public setting. They cannot stand each other and refer to themselves and the counterpart as "Good vs. Evil." (Jordan, T., 2000)

The sixth stage is Strategies of Threats. Conflict parties resort to threats since further talking is no use. The threats are used strategically. They go through three phases in increasing threats; first, both parties must "issue mutual threats". Second, threats are made more concrete, clear and unmistakable. Third, threats are finally issued as "Ultimata", the counterpart is forced to make a either-or decision. (Jordan, T., 2000)

The seventh stage is Limited destructive blows. The parties expect and believe that the counterpart is able to carry out destructive acts. The counterpart is seen only as an enemy. Little to real communication takes place between the two parties. They also realize winning is not possible, it is a lose-lose situation; each want to receive less damage than the counterpart. (Jordan, T., 2000)

The eight stage is Fragmentation of the enemy.  Destruction and fragmentation of the enemy's vital system is the main goal. Each party that is threatened by intensified attacks must make "strong efforts to suppress internal conflicts." Stress is greatly increased. The situation becomes unmanageable. The only thing that limits them is concern for their own survival.  (Jordan, T., 2000)