As the Stakes Rise, So Does the Conflict

We're down to the final week of the World Cup.

One thing I've noticed as the tournament has progressed is that the higher the stakes become, the more aggressive the play. During group play, every team was guaranteed three matches, and by the third game some had already secured their advancement. Now, in the semifinals and finals, every challenge carries greater consequences. Tackles are harder, emotions run hotter, players argue more passionately with the referees, and the energy from the fans has reached another level.

Interpersonal conflict follows a remarkably similar pattern.

As frustration builds, people become more protective of their position, their values, or their sense of power. The longer conflict goes unaddressed, the higher the perceived stakes become. What may have started as a misunderstanding slowly transforms into a battle over respect, fairness, identity, or control.

Addressing conflict early helps preserve relationships, manage emotions, and create opportunities for productive dialogue. Avoiding it often has the opposite effect. By the time a mediator is invited into the conversation, the conflict has frequently taken on a life of its own. Resistance to mediation becomes yet another obstacle because the conflict itself has become the new normal.
Recently, I worked with two situations that illustrate this perfectly.

The first involved co-parents. One parent had developed a pattern of avoiding difficult conversations while the other often felt excluded from important decisions regarding their child. Eventually, an opportunity arose that required both parents to agree. For the parent who had previously felt powerless, this became an opportunity to finally exercise some influence and stand firm on deeply held values.

Unfortunately, the inability to communicate constructively placed the child in the middle. Rather than focusing on what the child wanted, the unresolved history between the parents became the defining issue. The child now risks losing an experience they were excited about while the relationship with one or both parents may suffer further damage.

The second case involved a workplace conflict that had been simmering for more than a year. Leadership was aware of the conflict, but meaningful intervention never occurred. The issue was essentially shelved.

Six months later...guess who received the call?

By then, the disagreement had expanded well beyond two employees with different communication styles. It had evolved into a conversation about organizational systems, trust, and perceived fairness. While both employees acknowledged that communication was at the heart of the conflict, the conflict itself had become part of their professional identity. Admitting mistakes or taking accountability felt risky because the dysfunctional relationship had become familiar.

At that point, voluntary mediation represented an opportunity to reset the relationship. Without it, management's remaining options were becoming increasingly limited, including potential disciplinary action. That is where concepts like BATNA and WATNA become useful.

In negotiation, BATNA—the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement—is the course of action available if no agreement is reached. WATNA—the Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement—asks us to consider what happens if things go as badly as they reasonably could.

For the World Cup teams, the WATNA is simple: lose and go home. That reality drives extraordinary effort, fierce competition, and, at times, aggressive behavior.

In our personal and professional lives, the alternatives are often less obvious but far more enduring. A BATNA may mean accepting legal costs, changing jobs, parallel parenting, or simply continuing as things are. A WATNA may be damaged relationships, ongoing stress, declining trust, or a child caught between two parents.

The challenge is that BATNAs and WATNAs are highly subjective. People don't always choose the option that appears most logical from the outside. They choose the one that feels safest based on their experiences, emotions, and perceptions.

Unlike the World Cup, where someone ultimately wins and someone loses, most of life's conflicts don't end with a final whistle. We still have to work together. We still have to co-parent. We still have to share space, make decisions, and solve problems.

That's why the goal shouldn't be to "win" the conflict.
​
The goal is to resolve it before the stakes become so high that everyone loses.