Resolving disputes
De-escalation
A heated dispute cannot be ended with arguments. Only once the tension drops does the matter become negotiable again
In numbers
9
stages of escalation
in the model by Friedrich Glasl
3
levels in the model
at each one what is still possible shifts
1
question before any technique
which stage is this conflict at
- Origin
- Stage model of conflict escalation by Friedrich Glasl, nine stages
- Where it is used
- School, care work, transport, public services, volunteering, neighbourhood
- What it takes
- Usable on the spot, training helps considerably
- Third party
- Often carried by an uninvolved third person
What does de-escalation mean?
De-escalation covers everything that takes back the sharpening of a conflict before it turns into violence or a complete break. It is not a single technique but a stance with several tools, chosen according to how far the conflict has already gone.
The basis for that is the stage model by Friedrich Glasl. He distinguishes nine stages, from the hardening of positions through the shift from the issue to the person to the willingness to accept harm to oneself if it also harms the other side.
The practical value of the model lies not in the counting but in the diagnosis. Knowing which stage a conflict is at also tells you what is still possible and what is not.
What helps to de-escalate a heated moment?
The first part is physical and has little to do with arguments: distance, a calm voice, slower speech, fewer onlookers, a seat. A tense situation lowers the capacity to take anything in, and sentences that are obvious when calm do not arrive.
The second part is listening with feedback. Reflect back what you understood, without agreeing and without contradicting. That separation is unfamiliar: understanding is not consent, but in the moment it calms much the same way.
The third part is choice. Someone who sees no room to act escalates, because nothing else is left. Two small, equally acceptable options give it back without anyone having to give in.
When is de-escalation called for?
Whenever the tension is higher than the question at issue. In schools, care homes, on public transport, at counters and in volunteering that is the normal case, not the exception.
It also fits as prevention, and there it works best. The early stages are the ones where a conversation is still about the matter. Intervening there takes little; waiting means needing a procedure or a court.
It does not fit as a substitute for protection. Where violence is threatened or already happening, safety comes before conversation technique, and the right decision may be to leave the room and get help.
Where are the limits of de-escalation?
De-escalation resolves no conflict. It only restores the conditions under which one can be worked on. Whoever does not then settle the matter will see the same flare-up again, and sooner next time.
At the later stages of the escalation model, conversational means no longer suffice. There it takes a third person with a procedure, a decision, and in severe cases a separation of the parties.
And it is not a question of talent. The techniques can be learned, and they reliably fail for anyone applying them under pressure for the first time. That is why they belong in the training for jobs with frequent public contact, not on a leaflet.
How do you start with de-escalation?
With the stage question. Before the next difficult situation, judge an existing conflict once: is it still about the matter, already about the person, or about harming the other side? That single classification changes the choice of means more than any technique.
Then a small everyday exercise: in the next conversation, once repeat back what the other person said before answering. Nothing more. It slows the conversation by exactly the amount that makes it manageable again.
For organisations with frequent flare-ups the first step is organisational: settle who steps in, where people can withdraw to and how the incident is reviewed. De-escalation is easier when it does not depend on how one person is feeling that day.
The core
De-escalation is not giving in. It lowers the temperature so the matter becomes negotiable again.
Sources
The steps
- Identify the stageFirst judge how far the conflict has gone. Is it still about the matter, already about the person, or about harming the other side? Each stage takes different means, and a means from the wrong stage makes things worse.
- Lower the tensionCreate distance, take down volume and pace, reduce the audience, offer a seat. These are not tricks but the precondition for anyone being able to listen at all.
- Listen and nameReflect back what you have heard, without agreeing or disagreeing. Someone who feels understood does not have to get louder to be understood. It is the most effective and the least used step.
- Open a choiceOffer a choice instead of an instruction. Two options, both acceptable, both small. Someone with no choice escalates; someone who can choose stays able to act.
- Settle it afterwardsThe matter itself is discussed later, not in the heated moment. De-escalation does not resolve the conflict; it restores the conditions under which it can be worked on.
More in this series
- Nonviolent CommunicationEveryday life, work, school, family, mediating between groupsFour steps that turn an accusation into a statement about your own situation. It sounds simple and is the hardest exercise in an argument
- Peer mediation in schoolsSchools, youth work, leisure facilitiesPupils mediate between their peers, by fixed rules and without a teacher at the table. It works better than it first sounds
From a procedure to a mission of your own
Every one of these methods was developed by people who had a dispute in front of them and wanted to handle it differently. The same stance is what it takes on a small scale: in a neighbourhood, a school, a club.
Find your peace mission