by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediatorWhat Does J. Mearsheimer Teach Us About Shareholders Conflicts?
From the beginning of my work as a business attorney, I observed a striking pattern. In companies with three partners, disputes arose more frequently than in firms with two or four partners. For a long time, I treated this as an interesting curiosity. That changed after I read John Mearsheimer’s The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Why three-partner companies are statistically more prone to disputes? International political theories offer surprising insights into modern business partnerships. Specifically, Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism may explain why three-person structures face inherent instability. By understanding these structural dynamics, entrepreneurs can defuse conflicts before they destroy company value.
International Relations Theory in Business
Is instability of three-partner companies real? Business analysis often draws on theories originally developed to explain great-power politics. John Mearsheimer’s seminal work, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, presents a clear thesis. He says, that bipolar systems, consisting of two main actors, are significantly more stable than multipolar ones.
In a business context, this translates into the relative durability of companies with only two partners. In such a setup, each partner typically holds a clearly defined role and maintains a strong incentive to reach an agreement to ensure the venture’s survival.
The Third Partner as a Structural Risk Factor
Once a third partner is introduced, the situation becomes strategically complex. Over time, the third individual naturally begins to assess their relative position within the company hierarchy. Neutral events or private conversations may be misinterpreted as signs of a growing alignment between the other two, leading to a breakdown in trust.
As questions arise about the sense of further investing energy, trust, and capital, perceptions begin to shift. This change can radically alter internal loyalty and decision-making dynamics.
Can Mearsheimer’s Theory Explain Shareholder Conflicts?
But can a theory about nuclear powers really apply to a three-person tech startup? The short answer: surprisingly well. The issue is whether they can be used to analyze relationships between business partners. To begin, let us lay out his core arguments. These are:
Mearsheimer’s key arguments about why multipolar arrangements are unstable:
- Anarchy in the system – There is no central authority to enforce agreements or reassure participants. Each actor must rely on itself for security. This creates constant pressure to accumulate advantage and undermines stable trust.
- Offensive capabilities – All major actors possess power that can be used against others. This creates persistent incentives to increase power rather than rely on cooperation.
- Uncertainty about others’ intentions – Actors can never be fully certain about others’ motivations or future plans. As a result, they make worst-case assumptions that drive competitive behavior.
- Survival as the primary goal – Fear of being outcompeted or dominated shapes strategic behavior. Players seek relative advantage even at the cost of short-term cooperation.
- Power maximization behaviour – Actors do not stop seeking power once basic security is achieved. They continue accumulating power to prevent rivals from gaining advantage.
- Security competition becomes self-reinforcing – When one actor increases power, others respond in kind. This dynamic fuels escalation rather than long-term stability.
- Greater opportunities for miscalculation – Multipolar settings create shifting alliances and imbalances. These conditions increase the risk of misjudging intentions or capabilities, triggering conflict.
These assumptions and behavioral imperatives form the core of Mearsheimer’s offensive realism perspective.
Doesn’t this list sound eerily familiar?
When we consider interpersonal dynamics in small, closed settings like commercial partnerships, this list stops being abstract. Competing for relative advantage and mistrusting intentions often feels natural in tightly knit management groups. The same logic appears in global geopolitical systems.
If we consider the theoretical basis for such a conceptual transfer, it cannot be dismissed outright. At minimum, it functions as a legitimate intellectual exercise rather than a formal scientific claim. This framing is a thought experiment, not a strict scientific argument. Still, the parallels are striking and, I hope, clear.
The Security Dilemma at the Micro Level
This internal tension closely resembles the “security dilemma” applied on a micro scale. In this scenario, an increase in one party’s sense of security or influence triggers an instinctive fear in the others. Consequently, a partner may seek to weaken the rest of the group simply to strengthen their own position.
The desire to assume a destructive role—such as an informal judge or arbiter—often emerges. Historical precedents, such as the Roman triumvirates or the history of successor kingdoms following Charlemagne’s empire, confirm that these three-way arrangements are rarely durable.
In my mediation and advisory practice, conflicts in three-partner companies tend to escalate faster and more emotionally than in two-partner structures.
Strategic Consequences for the Company
Conflict escalation in a trio is usually faster and more destructive than in other configurations. As decision-making paralysis begins to erode the organization from within, partners often find themselves fighting each other more fiercely than they compete with the market.
Because you know your partners best, you are able to strike at their most sensitive points. Ultimately, vital energy is diverted into building internal coalitions instead of driving growth.
In real corporate disputes, this dynamic frequently leads to board paralysis, operational stagnation, or costly shareholder litigation.
Instability of three-partner companies. Why Three-Person Structures Are Worth Avoiding?
Companies with three partners are among the least stable business forms because the potential for unequal alliances—typically two versus one—is embedded in the very structure. Instead of creating synergy, the system often devolves into a continuous zero-sum game.
If you are planning a new company, a two-partner model is usually a safer strategic choice. Reading Mearsheimer is essential for any leader who wants to understand and mitigate these structural risks.
Scientific Foundations: Conflict Dynamics in Triads
To fully understand the risks, one must examine the mathematical and psychological frameworks governing three-party interactions.
Offensive Realism in Systems Without a Central Arbiter
A company’s management board often resembles an “anarchic” system. Without a dominant leader to enforce order, each actor must maximize their own power to ensure survival. In a triad, this logic produces a cycle of constant alliance reshuffling.
The Sociology of the Triad (Georg Simmel)
According to Georg Simmel, introducing a third person fundamentally changes group chemistry. Three distinct roles typically emerge: the mediator, the opportunist (tertius gaudens), and the dominator. This structural shift transforms simple cooperation into a complex struggle for influence.
The Physics of Intractable Conflicts
Modern sociophysical models suggest that three-group dynamics are inherently unstable. The human mind is wired to perceive coalition threats more acutely in triads, which often triggers defensive aggression and long-term instability.
Instability of three-partner companies. Key Sources on Three-Party Conflict Dynamics
The following materials provide a foundation for deeper risk analysis in three-partner companies:
- [PL] Jakubiec & Partners – Three Partners: When Conflict Is in the Air An analysis by Dr. Andrzej Jakubiec linking Mearsheimer’s theory with Polish company law.
- [US] John J. Mearsheimer – The Tragedy of Great Power Politics The foundation of offensive realism. Explains why actors in anarchic systems seek dominance.
- A study examining which coalition structures can form in three-player games. It analyzes the conditions under which players form two-player coalitions, a grand coalition, or act independently: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/16/3/30?
- Balanced Weights and Three‑Sided Coalition Formation (MDPI Games) https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/1/2/159
- Dynamic Stability of Coalition Formation in Dynamic Games: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167637724000749?via%3Dihub
- Hedonic Games and Coalition Stability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_game?
Most shareholder disputes do not begin with bad intentions, but with structural blind spots that could have been addressed years earlier.
Prior to entering a three-person partnership, ensure your agreement includes provisions to mitigate structural deadlock. I invite you to reach out for a consultation:
📩 kancelaria@jakubieciwspolnicy.pl
📞 536 270 935
by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediatorUsing AI in Disputes Between Partners
I handle corporate disputes, including conflicts between partners. I am also deeply interested in technology. Using AI to analyze conflicts is now a reality. It is also becoming a fact in disputes between partners. The question is how to use AI optimally in this field. We must also address the traps of using AI in this area. In this post, I want to mention a few of them.
What are partner disputes about?
AI in disputes between partners? Yes, but first, let’s define these disputes. Conflicts between partners are not just about money. Money plays a role, but rarely the leading one. Often, it is just a side issue. Partners sometimes fight each other more fiercely than their competitors. They have many tools and know each other well. This gives them a direct impact on each other’s lives.
What do partners fight about? They fight for power, agency, and vision. Also they seek appreciation and recognition. They also disagree on the pace of change or risk tolerance. Some disputes involve honesty, profit distribution, or hiring family members. Financing—loans versus own funds—is another common issue. In a three-partner setup, unequal coalitions often form. Three-person companies are among the least stable. I wrote more about it here: https://jakubieciwspolnicy.pl/trzech-wspolnikow-czyli-konflikt-wisi-w-powietrzu/
In this text (link up), I have applied an analytical framework developed by J. Mearsheimer in his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. In that seminal work, the author explains why international alliances among three states tend to be unstable. In my view, these conclusions can be cautiously extended to relationships between business partners.
How can AI be used in partner disputes?
AI is actually used to resolve disputes. You can read more about here: https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/artificial-intelligence-dispute-resolution-developments-challenges-perspectives-2025-07-11/ or here in litigation context: https://www.whitecase.com/insight-our-thinking/ai-risks-legal-sector-must-consider-dispute-resolution .
We see, that AI in disputes between partners in business can be used in many ways. New ideas appear constantly. We can group these into three categories:
- Preventive consultation: How to avoid a dispute?
- Interventional: How to resolve an existing dispute?
- Follow-up: How to improve the relationship for the future?
AI can provide general advice on cooperation or focus on a specific case. Both have pros and cons. AI is a great tool, but we must know how to use it.
General advice can offer a new perspective. It might suggest a solution you hadn’t considered. However, many general tips can be clichéd or simplistic. It is difficult to judge if these general “recommendations” apply to your specific case.
You can listen to more about using AI in conflict resolution here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=GO_cZ3NADZI&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fjakubieciwspolnicy.pl%2F&source_ve_path=MzY4NDIsMjg2NjQsMjM4NTE
AI in Disputes Between Partners and The Coupled Confirmation Bias in AI
AI in partner disputes offers many possibilities. However, asking about a specific case—your company—carries a huge risk. I call this the “Coupled Confirmation Bias”. This is the tendency of AI to confirm our subjective opinions.
How does it work? To get a solution for a specific problem, you must provide data. You need to describe the situation. The problem is that your story is only a slice of reality. A great writer might need four volumes to describe your relationship. You are trying to do it in four sentences.
More importantly, we have a subjective view of reality. We describe it from our perspective. This is natural. We must acknowledge that our view is not the only one.
What does the AI do? Language models are not gods. They are advanced technology learning to talk to us. They do not have a monopoly on wisdom. An AI can give you 92 ways to solve a dispute in 10 seconds. But are they wise?
AI models tend to confirm your views unless they contradict facts. We are very good at telling stories that favor us. We omit “small details.” In this situation, the AI will tell you what you want to hear. It can easily radicalize your attitude. This is the Coupled Confirmation Bias.
AI in Disputes Between Partners. Want to know more?
Our subjective perspective is a natural trap. Research from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School confirms that egocentrism prevents objective assessment. This makes the input data for AI fragmentary.
If you are interested in AI in legal practice, you can also read this report: DRI White Paper on Artificial Intelligence.
Conclusions
Corporate disputes are complex. They involve law, economics, psychology, and negotiation. Usually, each participant sees only part of the puzzle. Their view is fragmentary and subjective. When telling the story, they select facts and add subjective value.
It takes great insight and experience to find what is valuable in such a story. Language models cannot do this yet.
It is worth testing ideas with AI. However, following AI advice blindly in specific cases is a grave mistake. You can fall into a spiral of confirmation. This turns doubts into delusions. We often trust what we don’t understand more than what we know.
Do you need help with partner relations? Are you in a legal dispute? Do you want to minimize the risk of future conflict? Contact us:
Jakubiec & Partners 📩 kancelaria@jakubieciwspolnicy.pl 📞 +48 536 270 935
We are here to help! If you enjoyed this article, you can read my other texts on AI in legal work: