Conflict is present in any shared endeavour. It is not always destructive. Sometimes it points to a problem that has long been deferred. The danger begins when accumulated tension changes the quality of interaction. Conversations harden, trust disappears and decisions become emotional. This is the threshold. If it goes unnoticed, events gain their own momentum and quickly lead to losses, including legal consequences.
The accumulation of tension
In the early stages, almost everything looks manageable: minor barbs, brief arguments, fatigue after deadlines. Beneath the surface, however, three processes are already under way.
Erosion of shared meaning. The parties no longer understand their goals in the same way. One sees the task as product quality; another sees speed to market. The difference is not discussed and becomes embedded in their actions.
Imbalanced roles. People take over one another's functions, decisions stall while awaiting a signature, and important participants are not involved in time. A sense of unfairness and of being undervalued develops.
Emotional noise. Sarcasm, passive aggression and avoidance of dialogue emerge. Communication consumes more energy than it yields in benefit.
The combination of these processes is a reason to examine the development of disagreements more closely.
Friedrich Glasl's nine stages of escalation
Friedrich Glasl's model identifies nine stages of escalation. The following is an adaptation for working relationships, rather than a word-for-word translation of the terminology or a way to diagnose a stage from a single sign.
- Hardening of positions. There is a substantive disagreement, but contact continues. Arguments are still exchanged; the tone is tense but rational.
- Debate and polemic. Attention shifts from solving the problem to winning the argument. The aim is to prove oneself right. Listening gives way to a contest of arguments.
- Actions instead of words. The parties begin to act outside agreed arrangements. Surprises appear and partners are presented with accomplished facts.
- Images of the opponent and coalitions. The conflict spreads beyond the original pair. Supporters become involved. An “us against them” logic takes hold.
- Loss of face. Public discrediting begins. The parties attack reputations and recall past mistakes; dignity moves to the centre of the dispute.
- Strategies of threats. Ultimatums and promises of retaliation are used to exert pressure. A legal letter or court action does not, by itself, establish this stage: the purpose and nature of the interaction matter.
- Limited destructive blows. The parties are willing to bear costs themselves in order to harm the opponent. Their priority shifts from their own outcome to the damage inflicted on the other side.
- Fragmenting the opponent. Partners attack the foundations of their shared activity. Contracts are terminated, processes obstructed and key people leave.
- Together into the abyss. The logic becomes “as long as the other side suffers, even if I do too”. This is the final destructive stage.
At an early stage, structured discussion and clarification of roles may help restore cooperation. As escalation progresses, the form of intervention should be chosen for the particular situation.
Early signs of escalation
Observation can usefully focus on five areas.
Language. Irony replaces direct statements. Hints and evasive wording appear. People become categorical, generalise and attribute motives.
Behaviour. Meetings are cancelled at the last moment. People stop asking for clarification. The same problems recur without attempts to structure a solution.
Structure. Decisions are held up at a particular level. Processes depend on one person. Participants lack access to necessary information because “it has always been that way”.
Emotions. Willingness to listen declines. Certain names provoke irritation. Avoiding a conversation begins to feel safer than having one.
Digital traces. Emails become shorter and sharper. Messages are increasingly read without a response. Chats split into closed groups.
Repeated changes in communication and decision-making are a reason to discuss the sources of tension; a single sign cannot establish the stage of a conflict.
Recurring disagreements
A major conflict rarely appears without warning. It develops through repeated small episodes. People learn to work around the problem rather than resolve it. Managing its costs replaces work on its cause. The system becomes fragile; a small external pressure is enough to break it.
Tools for early intervention
1. A conversation before the quarrel
The aim is to return differences to substantive discussion while emotions remain manageable. The approach is straightforward.
State the subject of the disagreement in one paragraph, without judgements or interpretations.
Describe separately what each side wants to achieve and fears losing.
Identify where the parties are willing to make concessions and what constrains them.
Record a provisional agreed action for one or two weeks and a criterion for assessing the result.
This may seem elementary, yet the absence of such a short cycle often turns a working disagreement into lasting hostility.
2. A review of roles
Conflicts can conceal structural failures. A brief review of roles helps identify them.
Which decisions are stalled, and where? Who actually decides, and who believes they should decide?
Where do approval queues form? Which approvals are purely formal?
Which functions are overloaded? Who is repeatedly left out of discussions despite having to bear the consequences?
The findings should be set out in a short map of responsibilities. Clarifying overloaded or disputed areas of responsibility may reduce tension.
3. A facilitated meeting
This is more than a heart-to-heart conversation. The meeting has a structure and rules.
At the outset, everyone agrees on the question to be resolved and the way decisions will be made.
The facilitator records what the parties share and where their interests diverge.
Ideas are first gathered without criticism, then assessed against criteria; risks are discussed afterwards.
The outcome is one decision or a short set of alternatives, with responsible people and deadlines.
4. A map of tensions
It is useful to visualise the points at which the system repeatedly encounters friction.
Vertical tensions. Different expectations between levels of management.
Horizontal tensions. Friction between functions or teams.
External tensions. Points of contact with customers or contractors where delays or misunderstandings recur.
The map needs to remain in use and be updated. Its purpose is not to identify people to blame but to reveal recurring difficulties and address them early.
5. A basic legal framework
A set of arrangements is needed to help reduce risk.
Rules for recording agreements and subsequent changes, in a short format that everyone understands.
A principle for escalation: when and how an issue is referred to a higher level, and which documents are needed for this to be done properly.
Boundaries of acceptable conduct: what counts as a breach and what happens next. This is not a moral code but a clear mechanism for protection.
Common mistakes that make conflict persistent
Protecting reputation becomes more important than the outcome, so the parties refuse to acknowledge mistakes publicly.
Agreements are repeatedly restarted without resolving earlier loose ends. People stop trusting words.
Managing emotions replaces solving the problem. Empathy matters, but it does not repair the structure.
Correspondence repeats mutual accusations instead of addressing the subject of the dispute. The form of communication should be chosen with regard to the task, the need to record positions and the parties' readiness to talk.
Signs that cooperation is being restored
There are three signs.
A shared language emerges. People use the same terms and understand the criteria for success in the same way.
Decisions are again made on time. Escalations are infrequent and effective.
Tension becomes local and temporary. It does not spread through the organisation or turn into personal attacks.
Legal and reputational consequences of a late response
A late response can lead to formal claims, letters containing ultimatums and attempts to establish one's position in public. Employment disputes, corporate conflicts and broken partnerships may follow. Effective early intervention does not replace legal mechanisms, but allows them to be used selectively before irreversible steps are taken.
The following areas of work matter here.
1. Mediation as a formal procedure
Mediation involves the voluntary participation of the parties and an independent intermediary. Under Russian law, a mediated settlement reached without referring the dispute to a court or arbitral tribunal has the force of an enforcement instrument if notarised. An internal facilitated meeting and a record of agreed actions do not, by themselves, acquire that status. Participation in negotiations also does not predetermine the legal assessment of the parties' conduct or the validity of their agreements.
2. The evidential record
If the conflict enters a legal forum, documents rather than emotions carry weight. Correspondence, meeting records, maps of responsibilities and records of disagreement all contribute to the evidential account. Organising this material helps reconstruct events and assess a position. Mediation confidentiality and restrictions on the use of information from negotiations must nevertheless be respected: not all such information can be used freely in court.
3. Recording agreements
Even small agreements within a team are worth recording. This may take the form of brief meeting minutes, a note in a task management system or a confirmation email. What matters is not the quantity of paperwork but the existence of a common text to which the parties can return. Documentation makes a conflict more manageable and reduces the likelihood of arguments over who promised what.
A sound legal framework can therefore both mitigate the consequences of a late response and turn conflict into a resource for strengthening transparency and discipline within the organisation.
Conflict marks a point at which the system needs to change. The threshold is crossed when substantive discussion gives way to a battle over positions. Management's task is to recognise that moment before it takes over people and processes. This requires attentiveness, simple tools and discipline in using them. The energy of disagreement can then return to the work rather than to damaging relationships.