Method and references
How the situation assessment works, what it draws on and what its limits are
What the assessment is for
The assessment helps put words on a conflict situation: what fuels it, its intensity, how you react, your needs and whether the moment is right for supported dialogue. It leads to a recommended pathway and aims to guide — not to diagnose.
The theoretical frameworks used
| What is measured | Reference framework | Questions | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sources of conflict | Circle of Conflict — Moore; adapted by Furlong | 12 statements (2 per factor) | Radar of six factors, matching strategy for each |
| Escalation stage | Nine stages — Glasl, as presented by Faulx | 1 choice statement + 6 indicators | Stage from 1 to 9 and suggested type of intervention |
| Emotional load | Demoulin (emotions, regulation, attribution bias); Marc & Picard | 8 statements | Index from 0 to 100 and notes on biases |
| Reaction profile | Conflict modes — Thomas-Kilmann | 10 statements (self) + 5 (perception of the other) | Five scores and dynamic between the parties |
| Readiness to dialogue | Resistance to mediation — Stimec; Furlong | 8 statements | Index from 0 to 100 and identified obstacles |
| Safety and power balance | Symmetric and complementary situations — Faulx; Lalonde | 7 questions | Alerts and referral before any joint mediation |
How results are calculated
- Each scale is converted to a 0–100 score from the 1–5 answers.
- The escalation stage combines the chosen statement (60%) and behavioural indicators (40%). Reported violence sets the stage at 6 at minimum.
- Overall intensity weights the stage (55%), emotional load (30%) and duration (15%).
- The recommended pathway follows a decision tree in which safety always comes first.
Safety first
Where there is fear for one’s safety, threats, violence or control, the assessment does not point to joint mediation: it presents support resources first. Situations of harassment, dependency or strong power inequality are directed to an individual assessment meeting before any meeting with the other party.
Limits and validation
Your data
Your answers are processed only in your browser: they are neither sent nor stored on a server. A summary is attached to a message only if you decide so.
References
- Moore, C. W. (2014). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
- Furlong, G. T. (2005; 2020). The Conflict Resolution Toolbox: Models and Maps for Analyzing, Diagnosing, and Resolving Conflicts. Wiley.
- Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974/2008). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. CPP.
- Glasl, F. (1982). The process of conflict escalation and roles of third parties. In G. B. J. Bomers & R. Peterson (Eds.), Conflict Management and Industrial Relations. Kluwer-Nijhoff; Glasl, F. (1999). Confronting Conflict. Hawthorn Press.
- Marc, E., & Picard, D. (2015). Conflit et relation. Gestalt, 46, 129-142.
- Stimec, A. Gérer les résistances à la médiation. Dossier « Prévenir et résoudre les conflits organisationnels ».
- Demoulin, S. (2021). Psychologie de la médiation et de la gestion des conflits (cours).
- Bérubé, A. (2022). Savoirs, savoir-être et savoir-faire pour intervenir en PRD.
- Faulx, D. — Lecture de l'escalade (Glasl), symétrie et complémentarité, limites de la médiation.
- Lalonde, L. (2007). La médiation organisationnelle : enjeux, risques et pistes de solution. Revue de prévention et de règlement des différends, 5(2).
- Vogt, E., Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2003). L'art de poser des questions efficaces.