Communication in conflict

Why communication theory belongs in conflict resolution

Conflicts in the workplace, boardrooms, or between business partners may appear at first glance to be about content: a disrupted collaboration, a disputed decision, or a difference of opinion about strategy. But those who look more closely see something else. Almost always, conflict is also — and sometimes exclusively — about the way people communicate with each other. About what exists between the words. About who means what and who hears what. About patterns that repeat themselves without anyone consciously choosing them.

Few insights have been expressed as clearly and influentially as in the groundbreaking work of Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin Bavelas, and Don D. Jackson: Pragmatics of Human Communication, published in 1967 by the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, California. This book permanently changed communication science, psychotherapy, and organizational psychology. And more than sixty years later, it still provides direct insights for everyone involved in conflict resolution: mediators, HR directors, corporate lawyers, managers, and executives.

In this article, we summarize the key ideas of Watzlawick and his colleagues and show how they directly connect to the practice of mediation, binding advice, and other forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Because understanding how communication works means understanding how conflicts arise — and how they can be resolved.

1. The pragmatic approach: behaviour is communication

Watzlawick and his colleagues start from a surprisingly simple but far-reaching principle: communication is not only what people say. Communication includes all behaviour that people display in each other’s presence. And behaviour, they argue, has no opposite. You cannot not communicate.

You cannot truly “do nothing” in the presence of another person. Silence is communication. Looking away is communication. Leaving a meeting is communication. Every behaviour carries a message.

This insight has direct implications for conflict practice. When one party in a mediation sits silently in the corner, consistently avoids the other party’s questions, or demonstratively crosses their arms, that is all communication. These are messages that the other party receives and interprets, whether they intend to or not.

For mediators, this means that information is always available. The task is to read that information — not only the words on the table, but also tone, posture, silences, and recurring patterns. For managers and HR professionals, it means that ignoring a conflict is also a message: to the people involved, to the team, and to the organization as a whole.

2. Content and relationship: the two levels of every message

One of the most useful insights from Watzlawick and his colleagues is the distinction between two levels present in every act of communication: the content level and the relationship level.

The content level concerns the factual information being transferred: facts, arguments, proposals, and demands. This is the visible, explicit layer of communication.

The relationship level concerns the relationship that is communicated at the same time as the content: how the sender positions themselves in relation to the receiver, and how much respect, authority, or equality they communicate. This level is often implicit, but it largely determines how the content is received.

Watzlawick describes the relationship level as a form of metacommunication about the content. It provides context for the message. And when the relationship and content levels do not align, communication problems arise.

Consider a manager saying to an employee: “Of course you are allowed to participate in this decision.” On the content level, this sounds like an invitation to participate. But if the tone is condescending, the wording distant, and the broader context involves ongoing subtle exclusion, the relationship level communicates something entirely different: you do not really belong here; you are not my equal. The receiver then responds not to the words, but to the relationship message. And understandably so.

In conflict situations, this two-level model plays a central role. What parties say they want (content) and what they actually communicate about their relationship (relationship level) often differ significantly. A claim for ten thousand euros may appear on the content level to be about compensation, but on the relationship level it may communicate: you did not take me seriously, and now you need to acknowledge that. Anyone who negotiates only at the content level misses the conflict that truly matters.

Experienced mediators understand this intuitively. They do not only work toward a solution, but also toward restoring the relationship. They ensure that parties feel heard at the relationship level before substantive agreement can be reached. Watzlawick’s communication theory explains why this sequence is so important.

3. Symmetry and complementarity: who defines the relationship?

Watzlawick and his colleagues describe two fundamental patterns in how relationships between people can be organized: symmetrical and complementary interaction.

Symmetrical interaction is based on equality. Both parties mirror each other’s behaviour. If one party raises their voice, the other does the same. If one party makes a claim, the other responds with a counterclaim. The strength of symmetry is that it expresses equality. Its risk is escalation: the upward spiral in which both parties become increasingly forceful, increasingly entrenched, and increasingly unwilling to compromise.

Complementary interaction is based on difference. One person is active, the other passive; one gives, the other receives; one leads, the other follows. Complementarity can provide stability and clear role division. Its risk is rigidity: when positions become too unequal, the “lower” party may feel completely ignored.

In everyday conflicts, both patterns are recognizable. Employment conflicts between equal colleagues often escalate through symmetrical spirals: one incident triggers another, relationships deteriorate, and eventually nobody remembers who started it. Conflicts between employers and employees often have a complementary character, where the imbalance of power can stand in the way of a fair resolution.

Recognizing this pattern is the first step toward breaking it. A mediator who identifies a symmetrical escalation can deliberately introduce interventions that interrupt the cycle: separating parties, slowing down the process, or changing the structure of the conversation. An arbitrator or binding advisor can address power imbalances by providing clear authority and ensuring equal treatment.

4. Punctuation: who actually started the conflict?

One of the most practically valuable concepts from Pragmatics of Human Communication is the idea of punctuation. Watzlawick and his colleagues use this concept to describe a phenomenon that anyone working with conflict will recognize: the endless debate about who started it.

Communication is a continuous flow of events. There is no objectively identifiable beginning or end. Yet every participant in an interaction “punctuates” that flow from their own perspective: they decide which moment was the starting point, and therefore who was the cause and who was merely responding.

Party A says: “I withdraw because you are always attacking me.”
Party B says: “I attack because you always withdraw.”

Both descriptions are subjectively true from their own perspective, but together they create a circular pattern that is almost impossible to resolve.

In conflicts, this mechanism of punctuation often appears as the persistent belief that each party is the victim and the other is the offender. From their own perspective, both parties are right. Yet this mutual sense of being right creates a deadlock that is rarely broken without external intervention.

The solution is not to determine who “really” started it — in circular systems, that is often a meaningless question. The solution is to make the pattern itself visible and discuss it. This is exactly what effective mediation does: the mediator helps parties see the cycle instead of remaining trapped inside it. Once both parties recognize the pattern, there is room for a different choice.

For HR directors and managers dealing with long-running team conflicts, this insight is invaluable. The question “Who did this?” is almost always less productive than asking: “What pattern are we repeating together, and how can we break it?”

5. Digital and analog communication: words and body language

Watzlawick and his colleagues introduced a distinction that has become a classic concept in communication science: the difference between digital and analog communication.

Digital communication is linguistic and arbitrary: words have no natural resemblance to the things they represent. The word “contract” does not look or sound like a contract. Digital communication is precise, unambiguous, and highly suitable for transferring complex factual information.

Analog communication is non-verbal: gestures, facial expressions, tone of voice, posture, and physical distance. Analog communication predates language, is deeply rooted in human behaviour, and is particularly suited to expressing emotion, relationship, and intention. However, it is also ambiguous: a smile can be friendly or sarcastic; silence can express respect or contempt.

In conflict resolution, this distinction is crucial. Parties communicate through both channels simultaneously, but substantive negotiations almost always take place at the digital level. What happens through the analog channel is rarely addressed — yet it strongly determines how digital messages are received.

A party sitting with crossed arms and lowered eyes while verbally claiming to be open to a solution is sending contradictory signals. The other person does not know which channel to trust and may experience the communication as unreliable or manipulative, without being able to explain exactly why. This is a direct source of mistrust and further escalation.

Mediators are trained to recognize both channels and, where necessary, bring the analog level into the conversation. They do so carefully and respectfully, but they do address it. Because as long as non-verbal signals remain unspoken, they continue to interfere with the substantive discussion.

6. Symmetrical escalation and the power of the first step toward de-escalation

One of the most practically relevant insights from Watzlawick and his colleagues for conflict management is their description of the symmetrical escalation spiral. In many business conflicts — shareholder disputes, collaboration conflicts, merger challenges, and employment disputes — this pattern is recognizable: parties respond to each other’s behaviour and continuously increase the stakes.

Watzlawick and his colleagues show that this is not necessarily a matter of bad intentions or irrational behaviour. It is the logic of the system. Each individual action by each party may be understandable — even rational — from their own perspective. It is the interaction between the parties that creates an escalating pattern that neither side consciously chose or wanted.

This has a direct implication for the timing of ADR interventions. The longer a symmetrical escalation spiral continues, the more energy has been invested in it, and the harder it becomes to voluntarily step away. The first party to de-escalate may appear to be the one giving in. The barrier to stepping back increases with every round.

This is precisely where the value of a neutral third party becomes clear. A mediator, binding advisor, or arbitrator makes it possible for parties to leave the spiral without losing face. The involvement of a third party removes the zero-sum nature of de-escalation: it is no longer one party giving in to the other, but both parties choosing a different approach together.

For executives and corporate lawyers, this is a strong argument for early use of mediation. Every month spent in an escalating conflict creates not only direct costs — in time, energy, and legal support — but also makes the pattern harder to break. The question is not whether mediation works, but when it should be used.

7. Pathological communication patterns: when communication maintains itself

Watzlawick and his colleagues devote significant attention to what they describe as dysfunctional or pathological communication patterns: patterns that repeat themselves, make everyone involved unhappy, yet continue to exist. They were interested in a fundamental question: why do people fail to change even when they know their behaviour is damaging?

The answer, they argue, lies in the system logic of communication itself. Every pattern has an internal logic that keeps it alive. A system built around avoiding conflict will filter out or reinterpret every signal that resembles conflict. As a result, problems can remain hidden for years until they suddenly erupt into a crisis that nobody expected — but everyone experienced.

In organizations, this often looks like teams that never truly discuss the underlying dynamics: relationships, loyalties, power structures, and unspoken expectations. Instead, they maintain the appearance of harmony. Until someone leaves, a merger changes the situation, or a crisis brings everything to the surface.

The contribution of mediation in this context is not only resolving the immediate conflict, but also creating a structured environment in which dysfunctional patterns become visible and discussable. In Watzlawick’s terms, mediation intervenes at the level of the communication rules of the system: not merely resolving the conflict, but breaking the pattern that created it.

Conclusion: communication science as a foundation for mediation

The work of Watzlawick, Beavin Bavelas, and Jackson was written in 1967 as a contribution to communication science and systems therapy. Yet the insights they developed remain timeless and universally applicable, precisely because they describe how people communicate, misunderstand each other, and enter conflict across all times and contexts.

For the practice of Alternative Dispute Resolution, five insights are particularly valuable:

• You cannot not communicate — silence, avoidance, and ignoring are also messages that are received and interpreted.

• Every conversation has a content level and a relationship level — those who negotiate only about content often miss the conflict that truly matters.

• Punctuation is subjective — each party has their own version of who started the conflict; the mediator helps reveal the pattern instead of deciding who is to blame.

• Digital and analog communication can contradict each other — non-verbal signals can weaken or reinforce spoken messages; both levels require attention.

• Escalation spirals have their own logic — the earlier a neutral third party is involved, the greater the chance of a sustainable resolution.

Result ADR applies these insights in practice. In our mediations, we do not only work toward the legal or factual resolution of a conflict. We work on the communication patterns that keep conflicts alive. Because an agreement that is not supported by mutual understanding of the relationship is an agreement that will eventually create new tension.

If you would like to know more about how communication theory is applied in our practice, or if you are considering mediation for a current issue, we welcome you to contact one of our specialists for an informal conversation.