Three Metaphors for Conflict

Years ago, I ran across material describing three different metaphors for conflict. I wish I could recall the source now (if you know it, please leave me a comment with the information and I’ll credit the source) because the third of those metaphors became a foundation for much of the way I work with folks in conflict situations, particularly in higher ed.

One of the metaphors is very common and the one that often gets people into entrenched situations. The second is currently popular yet has some challenges associated with it as well. The third, not without the limitations any metaphor has, is nevertheless particularly apropos for conflict in academe.

Mediators and conflict resolution professionals learn early that the way one frames a problem has a powerful impact on the solutions available and visible. Like a problem frame, these conflict metaphors orient the believer toward a specific question, with greater and lesser degrees of effectiveness.

The first metaphor is “conflict as competition.” Viewed through this lens, the natural question we ask about such conflict is, “How can I/we win it?” Of course, it’s no surprise to you that the win/lose paradigm doesn’t work very well in higher education, where the debris left behind ultimately creates lasting friction. Collective bargaining, while ostensibly more “win/win” oriented these days, still sits on a “conflict as competition” foundation. Regardless of whether or not it’s an effective metaphor, my experience is that a lot of people engage conflict through this lens.

The second metaphor is “conflict as problem.” The question for those involved becomes, “How can I/we solve it?” In workplace conflict, this tends to be a more useful metaphor than the first because it creates an opportunity for people to focus energy on joint problem solving. But there are two significant downsides to adopting this metaphor:

• Too much focus on fixing the other person. If one or more of those involved tends toward the diagnostician, particularly of the pop-psych persuasion, then it’s tempting to see “the problem” as a character deficit or human flaw in the other(s) involved. Solving the problem becomes an event focused on fixing the other person(s). It usually goes badly. Who, after all, wants to be fixed by someone they think has a few too many problems of their own?
• A too-quick focus on solving or fixing. Most of us who’ve moved into academic or administrative leadership posts in higher ed have good capacity to problem-solve. We’re institutional fire extinguishers in one form or another, and multi-tasking ones at that. So, when we see a problem, we’ve been groomed to roll up our sleeves and start fixing so that we can get on to other business. The problem with a fix-it mentality is that taking the time to truly understand the problem’s complexity is undervalued. The absence of careful understanding can and will lead to less effective—and sometimes downright ineffective—solutions.

The third metaphor is, I believe, highly relevant for educational institutions. When we view “conflict as lesson,” we necessarily ask, “What can I/we learn from it?” And if we carefully tend to our learning, we have a greater likelihood of understanding the conflict in all its complexity before moving into problem solving. Not to mention the opportunity, if we allow ourselves to see it, to understand our own contribution to the current state of affairs.

It seems to me that the educator’s mindset makes the third metaphor accessible, too, because it allows us to take a familiar way of thinking and use it in another way.

Copyright © 2006 and 2007 by Tammy Lenski. All rights reserved.
Photo credit: Robert Grubba