{"id":1049,"date":"2026-09-30T15:13:34","date_gmt":"2026-09-30T15:13:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cooperation.law\/?page_id=1049"},"modified":"2026-10-01T05:54:07","modified_gmt":"2026-10-01T05:54:07","slug":"dealing-with-conflict","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/cooperation.law\/en\/dealing-with-conflict","title":{"rendered":"11. Dealing with conflict"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What this is about<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Working together means touching other people’s interests and feelings, and conflicts follow. This can happen as early as the negotiations, for instance when one side breaks them off or uses ideas it was entrusted with. What matters is dealing with conflicts so that afterwards something is settled that was open before.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The guiding question<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

What kind of ending is right for this conflict?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conflicts can end in different ways: by giving in, by meeting halfway, by leaving things be, by prevailing, or by finding a new solution together. None of these endings is always right. Which one fits depends on the subject, the relationship, the time available and how much the parties care about continuing to work together. A conflict brought to a proper end leaves something behind: a misunderstanding cleared up, a better rule, a deeper understanding of one another. A conflict that merely stops will come back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What helps now<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Knowing the conflict styles without believing in them.<\/strong> A widely used classification, going back to Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann, distinguishes five ways of handling conflict. Accommodating: one side gives way because the relationship matters more than the issue. Compromising: both give something up, often sensible when time is short or an interim solution will do. Avoiding: the conflict is left alone, which can be wise when the matter is minor or everyone needs time to cool off. Competing: one side prevails, sometimes necessary when a quick decision is required. Collaborating: the parties look together for a solution that none of them would have found alone. This is the most demanding path, because it needs trust and time. The classification helps people recognise their own behaviour. It is not a scheme for solving conflicts, and most people switch between styles depending on the situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Needs before solutions.<\/strong> In almost every conflict, the parties propose solutions that exclude each other. Progress comes from asking why someone wants that particular solution. Behind positions lie needs, such as security, recognition, predictability or influence, and these exclude each other far less often than positions do. Knowing them often opens solutions nobody had considered. Before solutions are discussed, feelings need to have been voiced as well. As long as anger or hurt has not been heard, every proposal will be read as an attack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keeping an eye on escalation.<\/strong> Conflicts develop in stages. Friedrich Glasl described a model with nine: in the first three a solution in which everyone wins is still possible, in the middle ones it is about winning and losing, and in the last the parties accept their own losses in order to harm the other. The higher the stage, the less the parties can resolve the conflict alone. Whoever recognises the stage can choose the right means: an open conversation, moderation by a trusted person, mediation, or in the end a decision by a third party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Agreed paths.<\/strong> A cooperation that settled at the outset how conflicts will be handled does not have to argue about it when the time comes. An escalation clause may provide, for example, that those directly involved negotiate first, then those responsible at management level, then a mediator, and only after that an arbitral tribunal or a state court decides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The typical mistake<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Conflicts are dealt with too late. People hope they will pass, keep quiet about irritations and collect evidence on the side. When the conflict breaks out, it is two or three stages further on, and a factual question has become a question of trust. Others take the first serious conflict as proof that the cooperation has failed. Usually it only shows that the cooperation needs to develop. What conflict reveals about acting together is explored on Conflict<\/a> in the Understanding section.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Online<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Online, conflicts escalate above all in text messages. Tone is missing, pauses are read as intent, and every sentence can be read in whatever mood the reader happens to be in. Anyone who notices an exchange getting sharper should therefore suggest a conversation before replying. After the conversation, one person summarises the outcome in writing and the other confirms it. Otherwise the dispute starts again over the summary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Online mediation is a form of mediation in its own right, not a substitute. Each party sits in familiar surroundings, nobody is a guest in the other’s space, and separate sessions can take place in separate rooms without anyone waiting in a corridor. Shorter sessions at closer intervals are easier to arrange than full days on site. It needs a brief sound and image check beforehand, an understanding that nothing is recorded and nobody listens in unseen, and at the end a written version of the agreement that everyone can review at leisure. The procedure itself is unchanged: confidential, structured, voluntary and self-determined (Section 1(1) Mediation Act, MediationsG).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Law in this phase<\/h2>\n\n\n\n