*6.1.3. Stages of conflict*

Escalation theory is presented by Yasmi et al. [31] to represent the escalation of a conflict when nothing is done to address the conflict or if the conflict is not addressed in a timely manner. Escalation theory within conflict in teams is "based on inter-individuals' conflicts within organizational settings" [31]. The model presented by Yasmi et al. [31] is based on Glasl's (as cited in Thomas [31]) stage model of conflict escalation which involved nine stages of escalation: (1) hardening, (2) debate, polemics, (3) actions, not words, (4) image and coalition, (5) loss of face, (6) strategies of threat, (7) limited destructive blows, (8) fragmentation of enemy, and (9) together into the abyss.

The first stage of conflict, hardening, takes place when a typical disagreement in opinion or policy occurs between two parties. As each party attempts to resolve the conflict, both sides become more fixed in their positions, hence the descriptive term, hardening, used for this stage. Thomas [33] explained that progression to stage two occurs when either side loses faith in resolving the conflict: "When straight argumentation is abandoned in favour of tactical and manipulative argumentative tricks, the conflict slips into stage 2". During the second stage of debate, the two parties continue to hold onto their fixed position, furthering their diverging positions. Thomas identified that rational interactions escalate into emotional and power issues during this stage. At this point mistrust becomes an issue and one or both parties begin to act without consulting the other side [33]. This leads us to the third stage, actions, not words. During the actions stage, each party views the other as a competitor in which verbal communication is diminished due to a lack of trust between the parties [33]. Both parties begin to feel a sense of helplessness in that neither side can resolve the conflict.

Once the conflict becomes a matter of either victory or defeat for both parties, as Thomas [33] pointed out, the conflict has entered into the fourth stage, images and coalitions. During this fourth stage, each party suppresses the opinions and suggestions presented from the other party resulting in in-action. Attacks become more prevalent and take a form that borders acceptable norms for the two parties involved. Thomas identified these attacks as dealing through "insinuation, ambiguous comments, irony and body language" (stage 4). Once these attacks expand beyond the acceptable norms for the two parties then the conflict has entered into stage 5, loss of face. Thomas [33] identified attacks during this fifth stage to be directed toward a person's status within the group or organization, a person's 'face'. Once the conflict escalates to where one or both parties begin to make ultimatums or threats, Thomas indicated that the escalation has entered into stage 6, strategies of threats. Beyond this sixth stage, those stages of limited destructive blows, fragmentation of the enemy, and together into the abyss, are present in rare cases [33]. In most cases, conflict within a team setting will be of the stages between hardening (stage 1) and loss of face (stage 5).

#### *6.1.4. Conflict escalation*

Of the three levels of conflict presented by Rapaport [30] the debate level of conflict would be the best level of conflict to model in a team setting. The exchange of information is critical to resolve the team's conflict. This exchange of information allows team members to consider other points of view, which can lead to productive resolution. This is supported by Rapaport [30]: "a shift in

Escalation theory is presented by Yasmi et al. [31] to represent the escalation of a conflict when nothing is done to address the conflict or if the conflict is not addressed in a timely manner. Escalation theory within conflict in teams is "based on inter-individuals' conflicts within organizational settings" [31]. The model presented by Yasmi et al. [31] is based on Glasl's (as cited in Thomas [31]) stage model of conflict escalation which involved nine stages of escalation: (1) hardening, (2) debate, polemics, (3) actions, not words, (4) image and coalition, (5) loss of face, (6) strategies of threat, (7) limited destructive blows, (8) fragmentation of enemy,

The first stage of conflict, hardening, takes place when a typical disagreement in opinion or policy occurs between two parties. As each party attempts to resolve the conflict, both sides become more fixed in their positions, hence the descriptive term, hardening, used for this stage. Thomas [33] explained that progression to stage two occurs when either side loses faith in resolving the conflict: "When straight argumentation is abandoned in favour of tactical and manipulative argumentative tricks, the conflict slips into stage 2". During the second stage of debate, the two parties continue to hold onto their fixed position, furthering their diverging positions. Thomas identified that rational interactions escalate into emotional and power issues during this stage. At this point mistrust becomes an issue and one or both parties begin to act without consulting the other side [33]. This leads us to the third stage, actions, not words. During the actions stage, each party views the other as a competitor in which verbal communication is diminished due to a lack of trust between the parties [33]. Both parties

begin to feel a sense of helplessness in that neither side can resolve the conflict.

between hardening (stage 1) and loss of face (stage 5).

Once the conflict becomes a matter of either victory or defeat for both parties, as Thomas [33] pointed out, the conflict has entered into the fourth stage, images and coalitions. During this fourth stage, each party suppresses the opinions and suggestions presented from the other party resulting in in-action. Attacks become more prevalent and take a form that borders acceptable norms for the two parties involved. Thomas identified these attacks as dealing through "insinuation, ambiguous comments, irony and body language" (stage 4). Once these attacks expand beyond the acceptable norms for the two parties then the conflict has entered into stage 5, loss of face. Thomas [33] identified attacks during this fifth stage to be directed toward a person's status within the group or organization, a person's 'face'. Once the conflict escalates to where one or both parties begin to make ultimatums or threats, Thomas indicated that the escalation has entered into stage 6, strategies of threats. Beyond this sixth stage, those stages of limited destructive blows, fragmentation of the enemy, and together into the abyss, are present in rare cases [33]. In most cases, conflict within a team setting will be of the stages

the outlook of the other can take place only together with a shift in one's own outlook".

*6.1.3. Stages of conflict*

78 Organizational Conflict

and (9) together into the abyss.

Escalation can take one of two forms according to Pruitt [32]. Escalation where one party becomes increasingly resistant while the second party remains open to discussion is what Pruitt termed *unilateral escalation*. Alternatively, Pruitt identified *bilateral escalation* to indicate when both parties are increasingly resistant to the other corresponding party. When bilateral escalation is present on both sides, counter to each other's opinions, this eventually leads to what Pruitt termed a *conflict spiral,* resulting in an escalation in magnitude. The longer the conflict spiral persists, and the higher in magnitude the conflict becomes, each party's members may begin to develop a new set of norms surrounding the conflict. At this point, it is harder to reverse the process due to the new, differing, set of norms that have developed on the two opposing sides [32]. This view of conflict escalation provided by Pruitt is most relevant to conflict in teams in that Pruitt identified that "groups are also more prone to escalation than are individuals".

#### *6.1.5. Dual concerns*

Dual concerns have been identified in the literature to represent the dual nature of 'concern for oneself' and 'concern for others' [34–36]. The interaction of the concern for self and concern for others occurs on a diagonal where low concern for self and a low concern for others results in a team experience that attempts to avoid the conflict. As the level of concern increases along the diagonal, the level of positive strategy for conflict resolution in implemented. The highest concern for self and for others on the diagonal represents a compromise situation for team members. Although the level of concern seemingly provides for positive outcomes related to conflict resolution, team members with little or no experiences have been observed to have difficulty integrating conflict resolution strategies for long-term solutions in team conflict situations [35]. It is expected that team members who experience the stages of conflict and are novices to conflict, would have difficulty achieving positive outcomes.
