Das Logo von sinnvollFÜHREN - ein Pinguin und der Schriftzug sinnvollFÜHREN
Kontakt

Konfliktkostenrechner

von sinnvollFÜHREN

Methodology: how this conflict cost calculator works

Principles

Conflict costs cannot be measured to the euro. The PwC/Viadrina study IV (2013) states that making conflict costs fully visible, quantifying them and attributing them ‘cannot be done validly’. This is why this calculator always shows ranges rather than point values.

The lower bound is calculated conservatively: only lost paid working time (formula I of the KPMG conflict cost study 2009 – working time × pay, i.e. minimum costs). The upper bound adds a declared escalation factor based on Glasl and the 10% pre-cost surcharge for the hidden conflict phase (KPMG 2012).

Every value carries its source, its year and a confidence rating. The calculation runs entirely in your browser – your entries are not transmitted.

Confidence levels

  • Official – official statistics or a public-authority calculation (e.g. BAuA)
  • Study – published study with a documented methodology
  • Practice value – common guide value without a robust primary study
  • Assumption – our declared setting; visible in the calculator and usually adjustable

All model parameters

Parameter Value Confidence Source
Time spent on the conflict per week (directly involved) 3.3 h/week Study CPP/OPP Global Human Capital Report (2008)
Note n=5,000 in 9 countries; 3.3 h is the value for Germany (the highest in the sample). Transferred to all other countries – declared as a transfer. The study measures 1.8 h each for the United Kingdom and France, 2.1 h on average; newer data do not confirm these country differences (EU-OSHA, OSH Pulse 2025: poor communication or cooperation in France 37%, Germany 32%, EU 29%). A smaller, self-selected follow-up study found 4.34 h (Myers-Briggs 2022, n = 271). Hence one value for all countries, adjustable in the calculator.
Share of time for those indirectly affected 0.33 factor Assumption Our own assumption (2026)
Note Those indirectly affected (wider circle, interfaces) spend about a third of the conflict time of those directly involved. Declared setting, can be overridden.
Annual working hours (full-time, for calculation) 1,720 h/year Practice value Common calculation value (project and HR controlling) (2026)
Note Calculation value for spreading the annual salary over hours; deliberately rounded conservatively.
Weeks per month (for calculation) 4.33 weeks Official Calendar arithmetic (52/12) (2026)
Forecast period 52 weeks Assumption Definition: 12-month forecast without intervention (2026)
Note Continuation of the status quo, no escalation dynamics assumed (conservative).
Pre-cost surcharge (hidden conflict phase) 0.1 factor Study KPMG/Unternehmerschaft Düsseldorf, Best Practice Konflikt(kosten)-Management (2012)
Note The study recommends a flat surcharge of at least 10% for the phase before the conflict became visible. Only affects the upper bound of the range.
Employer full-cost factor on gross salary AT 1.3 · DE 1.28 · CH 1.18 · EE 1.34 · FI 1.2 · FR 1.32 · HU 1.13 · GB 1.15 factor Practice value Guide values for non-wage labour costs AT/DE/CH, rounded; EE/FI/FR/HU/UK derived from the statutory employer contributions 2026 (2026)
Note Employer contributions and non-wage labour costs as a surcharge on the gross annual salary. Guide values. Estonia: social tax 33% + unemployment insurance 0.8%. Finland: pension insurance 17.1%, health insurance 1.91%, unemployment, accident and group life insurance, around 20% in total. France: employer contributions 2026 minus the general contribution reduction at median pay (Eurostat average across all pay levels 1.48). Hungary: social contribution tax 13%. United Kingdom: statutory minimum from National Insurance at 15% above £5,000 and 3% mandatory workplace pension; voluntary benefits not included.
Gross annual salary – default (median full-time, rounded) AT 55,000 · DE 54,000 · CH 84,000 · EE 20,000 · FI 43,000 · FR 33,000 · HU 6,700,000 · GB 40,000 per person and year Official Median gross annual earnings for full-time employees according to the national statistics offices or Eurostat, rounded down (2026)
Note Data year per country: Austria 2024 (€55,678, Statistik Austria), Germany 2025 (€54,066, Destatis), Switzerland 2024 (monthly wage CHF 7,024, extrapolated to the year with twelve months, Federal Statistical Office), Estonia 2025 (monthly wage €1,724, converted to full-time, × 12, Statistics Estonia), Finland 2024 (monthly wage €3,615 × 12, excluding holiday bonus, Statistics Finland), France 2022 (€33,809, Eurostat Structure of Earnings Survey, businesses with 10 or more employees – the French statistics office publishes no gross median), Hungary 2025 (monthly wage HUF 565,238 × 12, special payments included, KSH), United Kingdom 2026 (£40,911, provisional, ONS). Only a default for the input field – your own entry replaces the value.
Escalation multiplier (Glasl broad stage) A 1 · B 1.5 · C 2 factor Assumption Our own setting based on Glasl, Konfliktmanagement (escalation stages 1–9) (1980)
Note No study measures costs per escalation stage; the multiplier is a declared assumption (a = Glasl 1–3, b = 4–6, c = 7–9) and only affects the upper bound.
Directly involved (default) 2 people Assumption Default (smallest conflict: two people involved) (2026)
Indirectly affected (default) 5 people Assumption Default (typical team setting) (2026)
Conflict duration (default) 6 months Assumption Default (2026)
Replacement costs per conflict-related departure 0.9 – 2 × gross annual salary Practice value HR practice literature (range 90–200% of the annual salary) (2026)
Note No robust German-language primary study – hence a range, not a point value. Structural plausibility check: in Acas/Saundry/Urwin (2021), staff departures account for ~79% of UK conflict costs.
Annual working days (full-time, for calculation) 220 days/year Practice value Common calculation value (HR controlling) (2026)
Note For spreading the annual salary over daily costs. Plausibility check: BAuA (2024) puts the production loss per day of sickness absence in Germany at €152 (wage costs) or €258 (gross value added); for average salaries, our salary-based derivation is of the same order of magnitude.
Reimbursement of continued sick pay (share of the continued pay) AT 0.58 · DE 0.8 · CH 0 · EE 0 · FI 0 · FR 0 · HU 0 · GB 0 share Official DE: § 1 AAG (U1 levy, statutory maximum rate); AT: § 53b ASVG with the EFZ subsidy regulation (50% + 8.34% supplement for special payments); CH: no statutory reimbursement (OR Art. 324a); EE, FR, HU, UK: no reimbursement to employers; FI: Kela reimburses only sick pay extended by collective agreement, the employer bears the statutory ten working days (as of 2026) (2026)
Note Only applies if a company size is entered and it is below the threshold. DE: the statutes of the health insurance funds can lower the rate to 40% and exclude employer social security contributions – 80% is the statutory maximum (lowest cost estimate). AT: micro-businesses with up to 10 employees would receive 87.51%; not modelled for simplicity (costs slightly overestimated there). Only reduces the wage-cost path; the loss of value added stays with the business. Legal position 2026.
Company size up to which reimbursement applies AT 50 · DE 30 · CH 0 · EE 0 · FI 0 · FR 0 · HU 0 · GB 0 employees Official DE: § 1 para. 1, § 3 para. 1 AAG; AT: § 53b para. 2 ASVG (2026)
Note DE counts on a weighted basis (part-time 0.25–0.75, apprentices not counted), AT counts heads including marginal employees. The calculator asks for an approximate number; anyone close to the threshold will know their status.
Reimbursement from day of sickness AT 11 · DE 1 · CH 0 · EE 0 · FI 0 · FR 0 · HU 0 · GB 0 day Official DE: § 1 AAG (from the first day); AT: § 53b para. 2 no. 3 lit. a ASVG (from the 11th day, only for more than 10 consecutive days) (2026)
Note Conflict-related absences are usually short. In Austria, reimbursement therefore only applies if sickness absences usually last longer than ten days – the calculator asks this as a switch instead of including a reimbursement that rarely applies.
Productivity reduction for counterproductive behaviour 0.1 factor Assumption Our own assumption (2026)
Note Working to rule, information held back, misuse of working time: conservative setting of 10% of work performance per person affected; can be overridden in the calculator.
Plausibility cap 1 × annual personnel costs of those affected Assumption Our own setting; benchmarked against KPMG 2012 (2026)
Note Productivity losses (time, sickness, counterproductive behaviour) are capped at 100% of the annual personnel costs of the group affected (pro rata for the period so far) – people's work cannot be worth more than they cost. Replacement costs are a real cash outflow and lie outside the cap. In the documented KPMG 2012 cases, conflict costs reached up to ~50% of the payroll; calculators without a cap can produce implausible values far above 100%.
Contribution margin (lost customers and orders) 0.2 factor Assumption Our own assumption (2026)
Note Lost revenue is counted only at the lost contribution margin, not at full revenue (conservative). 20% as an industry-neutral setting; can be overridden in the calculator.
Share of damage in the project volume affected 0.1 factor Assumption Our own assumption; context: CPP/OPP 2008 (2026)
Note Conservative setting: 10% of the project volume affected is lost (delay, rework, share of cancellations). Context: 19% of German respondents experienced conflict-related project failure (CPP/OPP 2008). Can be overridden.
Avoidable (dysfunctional) share of conflict costs 0.5 factor Assumption KPMG conflict cost study (worked example), our own setting (2009)
Note Only the dysfunctional share is avoidable; functional conflict costs are part of productive disagreement. The KPMG worked example splits 50/50; according to KPMG 2012 the split is specific to each organisation – hence declared as an assumption that can be overridden.
Realistic reduction potential 0.25 factor Assumption KPMG conflict cost study (2009)
Note The study states a reduction potential of at least 25% as a thesis, not as a measured result – and we declare it the same way. The potential is calculated conservatively: total costs × dysfunctional share × 25%.

What we deliberately do not use

Some of the most frequently quoted conflict cost figures do not stand up to a check against the original document. We have checked them and do not use them:

  • „Conflicts cost 20% of personnel costs (allegedly KPMG)"
    Does not appear in the KPMG conflict cost study 2009 (full-text check on 24 August 2026). It originates from a blog's own calculation; the figure has been passed on incorrectly for years.
  • „10–15% of working time or 30–50% of managers' time is spent on conflicts"
    Unsupported secondary quotations within the KPMG study 2009 (p. 20), not KPMG findings.
  • „A conflict-ridden team costs ~$400,000 per year (Dana)"
    Not traceable to any primary source; we use Dana's method (share of time × full costs), but not the figures circulating under his name.
  • „A small conflict costs €30,000 on average"
    Attributed to the KPMG study without a page reference and not found there.
  • „Stress costs the Swiss economy CHF 4.2 billion (SECO)"
    Reference year 2000; methodologically superseded by the Job Stress Index (2022).
  • „Fear costs the German economy ~100 billion (Panse/Stegmann)"
    Currency disputed (DM/euro), partial amounts do not add up to the total, extrapolation logic not disclosed – only quotable as a snapshot of its time.
  • „One bullying case costs ~€60,000, bullying overall ~€30 billion"
    Circulates only as an unsupported secondary quotation (e.g. in the bibliography of KPMG 2009, p. 20) without a primary study.
  • „25% of revenue depends on the quality of communication"
    Same cluster of unsupported secondary quotations; sometimes wrongly attributed to PwC/Viadrina and not found there.

Literature

All studies that have gone into this tool – including those we have read and deliberately left out of the calculation. Each entry leads to the original at the publisher; where a publisher charges for access, the link leads there.

Sources the model calculates with

  • KPMG AG (2009): Konfliktkostenstudie. Die Kosten von Reibungsverlusten in Industrieunternehmen. Mit Hochschule Regensburg und Berner Fachhochschule. No longer online at the publisher – we hold a PDF copy. Framework of the model: nine categories in three dimensions, formulas I and II, the thesis on reduction potential.
  • Insam, A. / Lichtenauer, B. / Poirier, A.-C. / Sochart, C. (Red.) (2012): Best Practice Konflikt(kosten)-Management 2012. Der wahre Wert der Mediation. Unternehmerschaft Düsseldorf / KPMG. Original (PDF) Six documented cases with cost–benefit pairs; source of the 10% pre-cost surcharge and of the return-on-investment comparison in the report.
  • CPP Inc. / OPP Ltd. (2008): Workplace Conflict and How Businesses Can Harness It to Thrive. CPP Global Human Capital Report. n = 5,000, nine countries. Original (PDF) Default of 3.3 hours per week spent on conflict (Germany) and the follow-on rates for sickness, project cancellation and resignation.
  • Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (2025): Volkswirtschaftliche Kosten durch Arbeitsunfähigkeit 2024. Original (PDF) Official cost per day of absence in Germany: €152 production loss, €258 gross value added.
  • Gesundheitsförderung Schweiz (2022): Job-Stress-Index 2022. Faktenblatt 72. Mit Universität Bern und ZHAW. n = 3.022. Original (PDF) Basis of the Swiss calculation: 14.9% loss of working time (5.3% absenteeism, 9.6% presenteeism).
  • PwC / Europa-Universität Viadrina (2013): Konfliktmanagement als Instrument werteorientierter Unternehmensführung. Studie IV. Original (PDF) Most important methodological source: the retrograde conflict cost estimate (the basis of the quick check) and the reasoning why a result has to be a range.
  • Saundry, R. / Urwin, P. (2021): Estimating the costs of workplace conflict. Acas. To the original The only modern overall estimate: staff departures are the largest cost block, not absences. Supports the weighting of staff turnover; monetary amounts not transferred to the DACH region.
  • Acas (2025): How prevalent is individual conflict at work in Great Britain in 2025. Fieldwork by NatCen, n = 4,440. To the original Follow-on rates when conflict occurs (stress, loss of motivation, absence, resignation) from a random sample.

Official statistics for the default values

  • Statistik Austria: Jährliche Personeneinkommen. Median-Bruttojahreseinkommen ganzjährig Vollzeitbeschäftigter. To the original Source of the default salary for Austria.
  • Statistisches Bundesamt (2026): Verdienste 2025. Medianer Bruttojahresverdienst Vollzeitbeschäftigter. Pressemitteilung Nr. 113. To the original Source of the default salary for Germany.
  • Bundesamt für Statistik (2026): Schweizerische Lohnstrukturerhebung 2024. Medianlohn Vollzeit. To the original Source of the default salary for Switzerland. The Federal Statistical Office reports a monthly wage; the annual figure is derived from it.
  • Statistics Estonia (2026): Average wages increased by 5.6% last year. Press release, 5 March 2026. To the original Source of the default salary for Estonia: median €1,724 per month in 2025, converted to full-time.
  • Statistics Finland (2026): Earnings of full-time wage and salary earners 2024. Published on 8 June 2026. To the original Source of the default salary for Finland: median total earnings of full-time employees €3,615 per month in 2024, excluding holiday bonus.
  • Eurostat (2025): Structure of Earnings Survey 2022. Annual earnings (earn_ses_annual). To the original Source of the default salary for France (full-time median 2022, businesses with 10 or more employees). The French statistics office only publishes net medians.
  • Központi Statisztikai Hivatal (2026): STADAT 20.1.1.39 – Főbb kereseti adatok a munkáltatók teljes körénél. To the original Source of the default salary for Hungary: full-time median HUF 565,238 per month in 2025 (corrected on 16 September 2026); special payments are included in the monthly figures.
  • Office for National Statistics (2026): Employee earnings in the UK: 2026. Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. To the original Source of the default salary for the United Kingdom: full-time median £40,911 (April 2026, provisional).
  • Aufwendungsausgleichsgesetz (AAG), § 1: Erstattung der Aufwendungen für Entgeltfortzahlung (Umlage U1). Deutschland. To the original Basis of the reimbursement in the detailed calculator: businesses with up to 30 employees, up to 80% of the continued pay from the first day.
  • Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (ASVG), § 53b: Zuschuss zur Entgeltfortzahlung (AUVA). Österreich. To the original Basis of the reimbursement in the detailed calculator: businesses with up to 50 employees, 50% plus a supplement for special payments, for sickness only from the 11th day.

Methodological sources

  • Glasl, F.: Konfliktmanagement. Ein Handbuch für Führungskräfte, Beraterinnen und Berater. 13., aktualisierte Auflage. Haupt Verlag, Bern 2024. Publisher’s page (paid) Nine escalation stages; our escalation factor is a declared setting on this basis, not a measurement.
  • Mediation Training Institute at Eckerd College: The Cost of Conflict. Whitepaper. Based on Dana, D.: Managing Differences. Original (PDF) Methodological reference for share of time × full costs; the dollar amounts in circulation cannot be traced to the original and are not used.
  • EU-OSHA (2014): Calculating the cost of work-related stress and psychosocial risks. Literature Review. To the original Shows how widely cost estimates vary depending on the method – a second piece of evidence for presenting ranges.
  • Gläßer, U. / Hammes, M. / Kirchhoff, L. (2016): Konfliktmanagement in der deutschen Wirtschaft – Entwicklungen eines Jahrzehnts. PwC / Viadrina. Studie V. Original (PDF) Spread of conflict management systems; deliberately collects no cost data.
  • Gläßer, U. / Kirchhoff, L. (2011): Konfliktmanagement – Von den Elementen zum System. PwC / Viadrina. Studie III. Original (PDF) Component model for conflict management systems; contains no cost figures.
  • PwC / Viadrina (2007): Praxis des Konfliktmanagements deutscher Unternehmen. Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Folgestudie. Studie II. Original (PDF)
  • PwC / Viadrina (2005): Commercial Dispute Resolution – Konfliktbearbeitungsverfahren im Vergleich. Studie I. Original (PDF)

Read and assessed, deliberately not included in the calculation

  • Exenberger / Grabler / Hauska / Peltz (2006): Neue Wege der Ergebnisverbesserung. Qualitative Studie zur betriebswirtschaftlichen Erfassung von Konfliktkosten. Experts Group Wirtschaftsmediation, WKO. Reference at the publisher The only Austrian source (n = 15): €634 estimated savings potential per employee and year. Plausibility check only, not a calculation parameter. The WKO no longer offers the study itself; the link goes to its press release.
  • CIPD (2026): Good Work Index 2026. n = 5,074. To the original Conflict prevalence stable over three years – one reason why older default values are not automatically out of date.
  • CIPD (2024): How employers are tackling bullying and harassment at work. To the original Almost half of employers see their own managers as a cause of conflict.
  • TNO / CBS (2025): Nationale Enquête Arbeidsomstandigheden 2024. n ≈ 65,000. Original (PDF) Official prevalence anchor from the Netherlands: 27% had a conflict at work within twelve months.
  • SHRM (2025): Civility Index Q1 2025. n = 1,587. Original (PDF) Fully disclosed cost formula (minutes × rate × frequency) as a methodological model; dollar values not adopted.
  • The Myers-Briggs Company / Hackston, J. (2022): Conflict at Work. n = 271. Original (PDF) Successor to the 2008 study, but with a small, self-selected sample. That is why our default stays at the 3.3 hours from 2008.
  • Arbetsmiljöverket (2025): Arbetsmiljön 2024. Arbetsmiljöstatistik Rapport 2025:01. n = 17,665. Original (PDF) Europe's second official figure on conflict prevalence (Sweden), narrow definition.
  • EU-OSHA (2025): OSH Pulse 2025 – Occupational safety and health in a changing climate and digital world. n = 28,220. Original (PDF) Country figures for poor communication or cooperation (EU 29%, Germany 32%, Austria 30%, Switzerland 40%, France 37%, Finland 42%, Hungary 31%, Estonia 25%). Measures frequency, not time or costs; the reason why the calculator uses the same conflict time for all countries.
  • WHO / ILO (2022): Mental health at work. Joint press release, 28 September 2022. To the original Twelve billion working days lost each year to depression and anxiety; the share due to conflict is not quantified there.
  • Obidzinski, P. (2007): Berufsbezogene Ängste bei Lehrerinnen und Lehrern. Dissertation, Universität Tübingen. To the original Evidence of how thin the data behind the circulating ‘costs of fear’ is; only a snapshot of its time.

Model version: Model v1.2