1. Introduction
When winning the argument can mean losing the future: a minor car bump in Mbabane, Eswatini. A scare. Dust in the air. Two people speaking louder than they should.
In that moment there was no “process,” no “insurance,” no “reason.” There was pride, fear, urgency, and a silent question: who is in charge here?
This is how many conflicts begin. Not due to technical failure, but from a collision of emotions and perceptions.
Minutes later, the outcome was unlikely: a strong embrace, mutual respect, and the promise to meet again soon. The conflict did not disappear by magic. It was (de)escalated. Because, without reciting theories, I chose to treat that moment as part of a bigger game, not as a short duel to decide a winner. In this article, I invite my readers to reflect on the following question: how can we shift perspective, (de)escalating business conflicts without losing face?
This text complements others I have written in this column:
Going into a negotiation without a “Plan B”?1
Why is it (so) difficult to negotiate in Mozambique?2
Conflicts Without Losers: The Power of the Win-Win Approach3
Conflicts Without Losers: The Power of the Win-Win Approach3
Trust Capital: Trust, Distrust and Rebuilding Trust4
2. What is a business conflict?
Winning today is not enough: a business conflict is more than a disagreement. It is friction between interdependent interests, amplified by emotions, power, and language. It arises when two parties, who need each other to close a deal, start behaving as if the relationship were disposable.
That is when escalation begins: tone rises, words harden, positions become rigid, and the goal is no longer resolution. It becomes winning. But in an infinite game, winning is a victory that charges interest.
“Today, the other party is a counterparty. Tomorrow they may be a partner, client, regulator, or reference. Relational memory is long. Reputation travels fast.”
3. The invisible cost of poorly managed conflicts
Some costs do not appear in Excel: the interest of escalation is high and almost always invisible. Poorly managed conflicts consume leadership time, delay decisions, increase errors, raise stress, and erode trust. And trust is the most expensive asset to rebuild.
When trust falls, everything becomes more costly5. Meetings get longer. Emails become harsher. Teams form “camps.” Partners demand guarantees. Every concession feels like humiliation. The contract may even be signed—but the relationship is damaged. And that is a problem, because tomorrow brings execution, renewal, maintenance, a new project, and a new negotiation. That is why (de)escalating business conflicts is a continuity strategy.
In the Infinite Game6, there are no final winners. Only ongoing players. Applied to negotiation, this changes everything. The other party stops being an enemy and becomes a recurring counterpart. (De)escalating conflicts is not weakness. It is long-term vision. It is about protecting the ability to keep playing.
4. Negotiation tactics to (de)escalate conflicts
Protecting the relationship without giving up firmness: from this infinite game perspective, I would choose five tactics. Not because others do not work, but because these five, in practice, most often prevent reaching the “point of no return.” Above all, they bring the conversation back to where agreement is possible.
Radical active listening
Radical, because it is not listening out of politeness. It is listening to map the other party’s internal logic, even when it seems wrong. In business conflicts, the most common objection is not price or deadlines. It is recognition: “they are not listening to me.”
When someone feels ignored, they react strongly. Active listening disarms that need. Rephrasing, confirming understanding, and asking genuine questions are simple gestures that change the course of the conversation. It is not submission. It is control of the process. In an infinite game, the one who listens controls the process and protects the future.
Naming emotions without judging
The objection behind this stage is clear: “they do not respect what I feel.” When this barrier falls, the conversation returns to substance. In Mozambique, and in many African contexts, this is critical. Dignity is central. Without dignity, no agreement lasts.
When emotion is not acknowledged, it grows. When it is acknowledged, it subsides. There is a difference between “you are nervous” and “I can see this has made you tense.” The first accuses. The second validates. It is not agreement. It is recognition. In conflict, that validation is like opening a window in a closed room. Air comes in.
Focus on interests, not positions
Positions are rigid statements: “I want this,” “I do not accept,” “it is non-negotiable.” Interests are the reasons behind them: security, predictability, margin, time, risk, reputation. When parties are stuck in positions, negotiation becomes a tug-of-war. When they reveal interests, options emerge.
Replace confrontational questions with exploratory ones:
“What needs to happen for this to be acceptable?”
“What are you protecting when you say no?”
“What risk are you trying to avoid?”
Interests are rarely non-negotiable. What can change is the way they are met.
Reframing the conflict toward a shared future
This is the core of the infinite game. Reframing means changing the main question. Instead of “who is right?”, it becomes “how do we move forward without losing the relationship?” Instead of “who pays?”, it becomes “how do we resolve this fairly and learn from it?” It may seem subtle. But it changes everything. Because it offers an honourable exit for both parties. And without an honourable exit, people would rather lose money than lose face.
Closing with dignity
Not all negotiations conclude in one day. Some conflicts require a pause. Escalation happens when conversations end in humiliation, threat, or aggressive silence. Closing with dignity means summarising points of agreement, acknowledging effort, defining next steps, and preserving respect. It can be as simple as: “we did not close everything today, but we made progress. I will review X, you review Y, and we speak tomorrow.” Those who master this closing master continuity. And continuity, in an infinite game, is a competitive advantage.
These five tactics replace short-term emotional logic with long-term relational logic. And they require soft skills: self-control, empathy, clarity, curiosity, and courage. It is easier to escalate. Escalation gives an immediate sense of power. (De)escalation may seem like concession. But that is an illusion. In reality, (de)escalation is an act of intelligent strength. It protects reputation, keeps doors open, and reduces invisible costs.
5. Conclusion: (de)escalation is not concession
Back to Mbabane. I could have chosen the finite game: raise my voice, impose, threaten, call the police, “win” on the spot. Maybe I would have won. But the cost would be a ruined morning, unnecessary tension, and an unpleasant story to carry with me. I chose to play the Infinite Game: listen, acknowledge emotion, seek interests, reframe, and close with dignity. The final embrace was not theatre. It was proof that when dignity is preserved, peace becomes possible.
Throughout this article, I aimed to demonstrate a simple idea: the way we manage business conflicts says more about our strategy than our technique. Conflicts are not anomalies. They are a natural part of relationships where there is interdependence and scarcity. The problem is not conflict. It is unconscious escalation—the kind where, in the urge to win the moment, we sacrifice the continuity of the relationship.
We have seen that the cost of poorly managed conflicts is high and invisible: wasted time, defensive decisions, loss of trust, and erosion of relational capital. In African contexts, where the economy is built on trust networks, this cost multiplies.
The lens of the Infinite Game offers a decisive reframing. If the game does not end with the contract, every negotiation is an investment in the future. Winning today while destroying the relationship is a short and costly victory. (De)escalation is a strategic act of preserving options, reputation, and legitimacy.
The five tactics analysed shift the centre of negotiation from ego to purpose. They do not eliminate firmness. They eliminate noise. They do not weaken position. They strengthen relationships. None works without character. Technique without character escalates conflict. Technique with character builds continuity.
In a relational and cyclical market such as Mozambique—and Africa—this distinction is critical. Today, the other party is a counterparty. Tomorrow they may be a partner, client, regulator, or reference. Relational memory is long. Reputation travels fast.
And remember: in an infinite game, true power is not crushing the other side. It is building a path where both can return tomorrow.
1 https://www.diarioeconomico.co.mz/2022/05/27/opiniao/vai-negociar-sem-um-plano-b/
2 https://www.diarioeconomico.co.mz/2022/11/21/opiniao/porque-e-muito-dificil-negociar-em-mocambique/
3 https://www.diarioeconomico.co.mz/2025/02/27/opiniao/revista-em-conflitos-sem-perdedores-o-poder-da-abordagem-ganhar-ganhar/
4 https://www.diarioeconomico.co.mz/2025/03/20/opiniao/revista-em-capital-confianca-confiar-desconfiar-e-reconfiar/
5 Figures published in the “CPP Global Human Capital Report – Workplace Conflict and How Businesses Can Harness It to Thrive” highlight:
Managers spend up to 40% of their time dealing with conflicts.
Unresolved conflicts reduce productivity by 20–30%.
Teams in conflict experience higher turnover and more errors.
6 This idea is borrowed from Simon Sinek, author of The Infinite Game (2019), ISBN-13: 978-0735213500
