Chapter 12: Conflict Without Winners and Losers

Ten O'Clock, Again

Petra is forty-five and works as a manager at a supermarket. Her daughter, Klara, is fifteen. For the past six months, every Friday and Saturday evening has followed the same pattern. Klara wants to stay out with her friends until eleven. Petra says ten. Klara says that all her friends can stay out until eleven. Petra says she does not care what other parents allow. Klara says that Petra treats her like a child. Petra says that Klara behaves like one. Doors slam.

When Klara comes home, it is usually at a quarter past ten, or twenty past, never exactly at ten. Petra waits up, watching the clock. When Klara walks in, Petra points at the clock, and the argument begins again. Sometimes Petra takes away Klara's phone as a punishment. Klara responds by refusing to speak to her for two days. Then the weekend comes, and everything repeats.

Petra feels that she is losing control. She also feels that she must not give in, because if she does, Klara will push for more and more. Klara, for her part, feels that her mother does not trust her or respect her. She has started to come home late on purpose, just to show that she cannot be controlled. Both of them are tired, and both of them are hurt. Neither knows how to stop.

One night, after a particularly bad argument, Petra sat in the kitchen and realized that she could not even remember what the argument had been about. It was no longer about ten o'clock or eleven o'clock. It was about who would win. She had been fighting not for her daughter's safety, but for her own authority. And her daughter had been fighting not for an extra hour, but for her own independence. The clock had become a battlefield.

Petra and Klara are caught in what teachers in Adler's tradition called a power struggle. This chapter explores what power struggles are, why they happen and how to step out of them, in families, at work and among friends, so that conflict can be resolved without someone having to win and someone having to lose.

The Struggle for the Upper Hand

In Chapter 3, we saw that Adler believed every person strives to move from a feeling of being small toward a feeling of significance. He described two directions this striving can take: toward the useful side of life, where we grow in ways that also help others, or toward the useless side, where we try to feel superior by controlling or defeating others. A power struggle is a clear example of striving on the useless side. Each person is trying to feel significant by winning, and each feels small when they lose.

In a power struggle, the original issue soon becomes less important than the contest itself. What began as a disagreement about a curfew, a project plan or a household task becomes a question of who is in charge. Each person feels that giving way would mean being defeated, and each digs in more firmly. The more one pushes, the more the other resists. This is why power struggles can last for months or years, even about very small matters.

Adler's ideas about equality, which we explored in Chapter 7, help explain why power struggles are so damaging. A power struggle is a battle for the top position on the ladder. It assumes that one person must be above and the other below. As long as both people accept this assumption, they cannot cooperate, because cooperation requires standing side by side.

One of the most important teachers in Adler's tradition was Rudolf Dreikurs, who lived from 1897 to 1972 and worked mainly with parents and teachers. Dreikurs developed many practical ideas from Adler's psychology. One of his central insights was that a power struggle needs two people. If one person stops fighting, the struggle cannot continue. This does not mean giving in. It means refusing to take part in the contest, while still caring about the real issue.

This insight is simple, but it is very hard to practise. When someone challenges us, our instinct is to push back. Stepping out of the struggle can feel like weakness or defeat. But in fact, it requires great strength, because it means letting go of the need to win. And it often opens the door to a solution that neither person could reach while they were fighting.

Four Mistaken Goals and the Clue of Our Own Feelings

Dreikurs also developed an idea that many parents and teachers have found helpful. He suggested that when children misbehave, their behaviour is often aimed, without their knowing it, at one of four mistaken goals. Each goal is a mistaken way of trying to belong. The first is seeking attention: the child believes they belong only when they are being noticed. The second is seeking power: the child believes they belong only when they are in control or cannot be controlled. The third is seeking revenge: the child, feeling hurt, believes they can only belong by hurting others in return. The fourth is showing inadequacy: the child, deeply discouraged, believes they cannot belong at all and gives up, wanting to be left alone.

Dreikurs suggested a useful clue for recognizing which goal is at work: the adult's own feeling. If the adult feels mainly annoyed or irritated, the child may be seeking attention. If the adult feels angry, challenged or defeated, the child may be seeking power. If the adult feels hurt, the child may be seeking revenge. If the adult feels hopeless, the child may be showing inadequacy. Our own feelings, in other words, can tell us something about what the other person is trying to achieve.

These ideas were developed for children, and they should be used carefully. No simple scheme can explain every situation, and every child is different. But many people find that the ideas also help them understand conflicts between adults. A colleague who constantly challenges every decision may be in a struggle for power. A partner who makes cutting remarks after a disagreement may be seeking a kind of revenge for feeling hurt. Recognizing the pattern does not excuse it, but it helps us respond more wisely.

For Petra, the clue was clear. When Klara came home late, Petra felt angry and challenged. She felt that her authority was being tested. According to Dreikurs' idea, this suggested a struggle for power. And Petra had to admit that she, too, was seeking power. She wanted to win. Klara's late arrivals were, in part, a way of showing that she could not be controlled. Petra's punishments were, in part, a way of showing that she could control her. Both of them were fighting on the useless side of life.

Dreikurs suggested that when a power struggle is recognized, the adult should step out of it: not fighting and not giving in, but staying calm, being respectful and looking for ways to give the other person real choices and real responsibility within fair limits. A person seeking power often needs to feel that they have some genuine influence over their own life. When they are given it, the need to fight often fades.

Petra Steps Out of the Struggle

Petra decided to try. One Sunday afternoon, when both of them were calm, she sat down with Klara and said something she had never said before. "I do not want to fight with you every weekend. I think we have both been trying to win, and we are both losing. Can we work this out together?"

Klara was suspicious at first. But Petra continued. She explained her real concern, which was not the exact time, but Klara's safety: knowing where she was, knowing she had a way home and knowing she was with people she trusted. She asked Klara what she needed. Klara said that she wanted to be trusted, that she felt embarrassed when she had to leave before her friends and that she wanted to be treated as someone who could make decisions.

Together, they worked out an agreement. On Fridays and Saturdays, Klara could stay out until half past ten, and until eleven for special occasions, if she let Petra know where she was and who she was with, and if she sent a message when she was on her way home. If she kept the agreement for a month, they would talk about extending it. If she did not keep it, the time would return to ten o'clock for the following weekend, as a result agreed in advance, not as a punishment invented in anger. Dreikurs called results of this kind, arranged beforehand and closely linked to the behaviour, logical consequences, to distinguish them from the natural consequences that come from life itself.

The first few weekends were not perfect. Once, Klara came home fifteen minutes late without sending a message. Petra felt the old anger rise. But instead of starting an argument, she said calmly, "You were late and did not message. So next weekend it is ten o'clock, as we agreed. Good night." She went to bed. Klara was surprised. There was no fight, nothing to push against. The next weekend she came home at ten. The weekend after, she kept the agreement perfectly.

Six months later, Petra and Klara still disagree sometimes, as all parents and teenagers do. But the weekly battles have stopped. Klara has extended her curfew by keeping her agreements, and Petra feels that she knows where her daughter is and that she can trust her. "I thought I had to win to keep her safe," Petra says. "But the fighting was making her less safe, because she stopped telling me anything. When I stopped fighting, she started talking again."

Arash and the Project Dispute

Arash is forty and works as a project coordinator at a company that installs solar panels. He and a colleague, Ingeborg, lead two parts of a large project, and they have been in conflict for weeks about how the work should be scheduled. Arash wants to finish one area completely before moving to the next. Ingeborg wants to work on several areas at once. Each thinks the other's approach is wrong.

Their disagreement has grown into something bigger. In meetings, they contradict each other. They send long emails defending their own plans and criticizing the other's. Other team members have started to take sides. Arash finds himself lying awake at night composing arguments, and he notices that he feels a rush of satisfaction whenever Ingeborg's plan runs into a problem. He realizes, with some shame, that he wants her to fail.

When Arash recognized this feeling, he understood that the conflict had become a power struggle. It was no longer about the best way to schedule the work. It was about who was right, and who would be seen as right by the managers. The project itself was suffering, because the two leaders were spending their energy fighting each other rather than solving problems.

Arash decided to step out. He asked Ingeborg for a private meeting and began by saying, "I think we have both become so focused on defending our own plans that we have stopped listening to each other. I would like to understand your approach better." He asked her to explain her reasoning, and he listened without interrupting. He discovered that her approach was designed to deal with a supply problem that he had not fully understood. He also explained his own concerns, which were about safety and quality checks.

Once they were listening to each other, a combined solution became possible. They agreed to work on two areas at once, as Ingeborg wanted, but with a full safety and quality check at the end of each area before moving on, as Arash wanted. The project moved faster, and the team stopped taking sides. Arash says that the hardest part was letting go of the need to be right. "I wanted to win," he says. "But when I stopped trying to win, we both got what we actually needed."

Mbali and the Housemates

Mbali is twenty-three and shares a flat with three other young people. For months, the flat has been divided by a conflict about cleaning. Mbali and one housemate keep the kitchen tidy. The other two leave dirty dishes in the sink for days. Mbali has tried leaving notes, sending messages to the group and complaining. Nothing has changed. Instead, the atmosphere in the flat has become cold and tense.

Recently, Mbali has started to do something she is not proud of. When the two housemates leave dishes, she moves them onto their beds. They responded by eating Mbali's food from the fridge. The conflict has become a kind of quiet war, with each side trying to punish the other. In Dreikurs' terms, it has moved from a struggle for power toward revenge, where each side feels hurt and wants to hurt the other.

Mbali realized that this could not continue. She suggested a house meeting, with a simple rule: everyone would speak in turn, and nobody would interrupt or blame. At the meeting, she began by apologizing for moving the dishes onto their beds. This surprised the other two, who had been expecting an attack. One of them then admitted that she had been working night shifts and had been too exhausted to clean. The other said that he had felt judged and bossed around by the notes, which had made them less willing to help.

Once everyone had spoken, the housemates agreed on a new arrangement. Instead of everyone cleaning the kitchen whenever it was needed, which had left the responsibility unclear, each person would take charge of the kitchen for one week out of four. The housemate working night shifts would take the week when her shifts were lightest. They also agreed to hold a short house meeting once a month to discuss any problems before they grew.

The new arrangement is not perfect, but the war has ended. "I thought I was fighting for cleanliness," Mbali says. "But I was really fighting to prove that I was right and they were wrong. When I apologized first, it was like opening a window. Everyone could breathe again." The house meeting, a simple tool that teachers in Adler's tradition often recommended for families, turned a struggle into a shared problem to be solved together.

Viktoria and the Online Argument

Viktoria is fifty-two and works as a dental nurse. She belongs to an online group for residents of her neighbourhood. A few weeks ago, a discussion began about a plan to cut down several old trees in a local park to make room for a new playground. Viktoria strongly opposes cutting down the trees. Her cousin, who lives in the same neighbourhood and has young children, strongly supports the playground.

The discussion quickly became heated. Viktoria and her cousin exchanged long messages, each more sharply worded than the last. Other residents joined in. Viktoria found herself checking her phone constantly, reading replies and writing responses late into the night. She felt angry, misunderstood and determined to win. Her cousin, whom she had always liked, now seemed like an opponent.

Online arguments have a special tendency to become power struggles. People cannot see each other's faces or hear their tone of voice. Messages can be read in the harshest possible way. Many people are watching, which makes it harder to admit a point or back down. And there is always time to write one more reply. The result is that disagreements can turn into contests very quickly.

After a week of this, Viktoria noticed that she was sleeping badly and that the argument was spoiling her relationship with her cousin. She decided to step out. She wrote one last message in the group: "I care about these trees, and I also understand why families want a playground. I do not want to keep arguing online. I would like to talk with anyone who is interested in finding a solution that might keep some trees and still make space for children." Then she called her cousin and invited her for coffee.

Over coffee, the two cousins talked calmly for the first time. They discovered that they agreed on more than they had thought. Both wanted the park to be a good place for the whole neighbourhood. Together, they went to a public meeting about the plan and suggested a different location for the playground that would keep most of the old trees. The plan was eventually changed. Viktoria says that she learned to be very careful about arguments online. "On a screen, everyone becomes an enemy," she says. "Over coffee, my cousin became my cousin again."

Practical Steps: Stepping Out of Power Struggles

The first step is to recognize a power struggle. Ask yourself: is this still about the original issue, or has it become about who wins? Do I feel angry, challenged or determined not to give in? Am I secretly hoping the other person will fail? If the answer is yes, you may be in a power struggle.

The second step is to use your own feelings as a clue. Notice what you feel when the conflict arises. Annoyance, anger, hurt or hopelessness may each point to something different in what the other person needs. This can help you respond to the real need, rather than only to the behaviour.

The third step is to step out, without giving in. Calmly decline to keep fighting. You might say, "I do not want to argue about this. Can we talk about it when we are both calm?" or simply leave the room for a while. Remember that a power struggle needs two people. When you stop fighting, the struggle loses its fuel.

The fourth step is to look for the real concerns on both sides. In a calm moment, explain what you really care about, and ask the other person what they really care about. Petra cared about safety. Klara cared about trust. Arash cared about quality. Ingeborg cared about supplies. Once the real concerns are on the table, solutions that respect both often become visible.

The fifth step is to agree on fair arrangements and their results in advance. Rather than inventing punishments in anger, agree together on what will happen if an arrangement is not kept. This turns consequences from weapons into shared rules, and it removes much of the emotion from enforcing them.

The sixth step is to use regular meetings. In families, flats and teams, a short regular meeting where everyone can speak in turn can prevent many conflicts from growing into power struggles. Problems are raised early, while they are still small, and everyone has a voice in solving them.

Stepping Out Is Not Giving In

It is important to be clear that stepping out of a power struggle does not mean giving the other person whatever they want. Petra did not simply let Klara stay out as late as she liked. Arash did not simply accept Ingeborg's plan. Stepping out means refusing to fight for victory, while still caring about the real issue and working toward a fair solution. Sometimes, this means holding a firm limit, calmly and without anger.

It is also important to recognize that not all conflicts can be resolved by stepping out. Some people are not willing to cooperate, however calmly we approach them. In such cases, we may need to set clear limits, seek help from others, such as a manager or a mediator, or, in some situations, create distance from the relationship.

And some conflicts involve real danger. If a disagreement involves threats, violence or a person who frightens you, stepping out of the struggle may mean physically leaving the situation and seeking help. Your safety always comes first. If you are in danger, contact your local emergency number. If you are worried about a young person's safety, or about your own, reach out to services that can help.

A Short Exercise: The Feeling Clue

This exercise helps you understand a conflict that keeps repeating and plan a different response. It takes about fifteen minutes.

Think of a conflict that has happened several times with the same person: a child, a partner, a colleague, a housemate, a relative. On a page, describe the conflict briefly. What usually happens? What does the other person do? What do you do? How does it end?

Next, write down how you usually feel during the conflict. Be honest. Do you feel annoyed, angry, challenged, hurt, hopeless or something else? Then, using Dreikurs' clue as a rough guide, write what the other person might be seeking. If you feel challenged, perhaps they want some control over their own life. If you feel hurt, perhaps they feel hurt too. If you feel hopeless, perhaps they are discouraged. Remember that this is a guess, not a diagnosis.

Then write what you might be seeking in the conflict. Are you trying to win? To be right? To be in control? To protect someone? Underneath your position, what is your real concern?

Finally, write a plan for the next time the conflict begins. How will you step out of the struggle? What will you say? How could you invite the other person to talk about real concerns at a calm time? Keep the plan short and simple. When Petra did this exercise, her plan was: "No arguing at the door. If she is late, say what we agreed, calmly, and go to bed. Talk on Sunday afternoon, not on Saturday night." She said that writing it down made it much easier to follow when the moment came.

Chapter Summary

A power struggle is a conflict in which the original issue becomes less important than who wins. Adler saw the striving to feel superior by defeating others as striving on the useless side of life, and his ideas about equality show why such struggles block cooperation. Rudolf Dreikurs, a teacher in Adler's tradition, observed that a power struggle needs two people, and described four mistaken goals behind children's misbehaviour, with our own feelings as a clue to which goal is at work.

Petra and her daughter's curfew, Arash and his colleague's schedule, Mbali and her housemates and Viktoria in her online argument all found that stepping out of the struggle, without giving in, opened the way to real solutions. Recognizing the struggle, using feelings as clues, looking for real concerns, agreeing on fair arrangements and holding regular meetings can turn conflicts into shared problems. Where there is danger, safety comes first.

In the next chapter, we will look at a kind of courage that makes all of this easier: the courage to be imperfect.