The Elephant of Resolution
Conflicts are incredibly inconvenient. They disrupt our relationships, can be violent, and often get in the way of our hopes for the future. It’s no wonder we want conflicts to go away. We want them resolved. But what if “conflict resolution” itself was the very thing getting in the way?
In this newsletter, we’re talking about the Elephant of Resolution—how the goal of resolution doesn’t always help us achieve what we desire: restored relationships, personal healing, sustainable solutions. Resolution often appears to “stamp out” the issues, but the problems tend to go underground. Out of sight, the tensions fester below the surface, continuing to cause damage.
To illustrate the limitations of resolution, let’s explore a powerful example from across the world.
The Elephant of Resolution
At the height of the violence in South Africa during the late 80s, conflict resolution seemed like a noble goal. My colleague, John Radford, was working with a team of mediators to find a way forward amidst the violence. Apartheid—a system of racial segregation that oppressed the non-white majority—had been in effect since 1948, and by the mid to late 1980s, brutal violence had escalated beyond comprehension.
As John and his team worked with communities, they realized that resolving one issue wasn’t enough. The systemic nature of the conflict required deeper, more enduring approaches. Instead of aiming to “resolve” every individual problem, they saw the need to empower communities with the tools to navigate ongoing tensions.
Closer to home, I’ve seen the motivation for resolution cause disappointment and unsatisfactory results. Just recently I was talking to someone who was grieving the relational distance created between him and his sister. Years ago, he failed to support her in ways that she had hoped, and only later learned from other family members about the hurt he had caused. Since then, he has tried to address the incident, but his sister has chosen to “move past it,” effectively resolving the issue in her mind. Yet, the scars remain evident in their cold exchanges. He wishes they both had the capacity to engage in a meaningful conversation.
In another instance, a mother is struggling to help her daughter navigate mounting credit card debt. The daughter insists on maintaining the same quality of life despite her financial struggles, while her mother has stepped in to cover expenses and shield her daughter from public scrutiny. This enabling behaviour has effectively glossed over the issue, creating the illusion of resolution. Yet, the underlying problems persist, keeping the daughter stuck.
These stories reveal a fundamental truth: that out of sight out of mind doesn’t bring about true resolution. That if we want conflict to be effectively addressed, it requires us to go towards the issues, to build capacity to be able to hold the tension. In this way, in our day to day relationships, conflict is kind. Naming the issues shows we care enough to see them through.
When we are quick to “resolve” we can gloss over the hurts and settle for surface-level niceties. Kindness, by contrast, reaches to the core of the issues and humanizes the strained tensions.
The Problem with Conflict Resolution
The field of conflict resolution is well-established and valuable, but the very term “resolution” can be misleading. While resolving conflicts might seem like the ultimate goal, it can lead to superficial fixes rather than lasting change.
Resolution often focuses on achieving an end result—eliminating the issue—without enough attention to the process or the aftermath. As John observed in South Africa, addressing one issue at a time provided temporary relief but left communities unprepared for future disputes. What was needed wasn’t just resolution but the ability to hold tension and build resilience.
In our own lives, how often do we seek quick resolutions that fail to address the core concerns? This societal fixation on resolving conflict can leave us playing a never-ending game of “whack-a-mole,” extinguishing one fire only to see another arise. Or pretending that issues aren’t there entirely so we can say there is peace. Instead of chasing resolution, we need to normalize conflict’s presence in our lives and develop the capacity to engage with it constructively.
Holding the Tension
In South Africa, helping opposing parties see eye-to-eye seemed impossible. If resolution meant ending their opposition, the effort felt futile. Instead, John’s team equipped communities with practical strategies and a mindset that embraced the complexity of conflict.
I challenge you to “hold the tension” of conflict by choosing to sit with the discomfort, to navigate disagreements, and to sustain constructive engagement rather than rushing to “fix” everything.
Strategies to Hold the Tension
Every Staying Curious newsletter is designed to provide tools and insights to help you “hold the tension” and navigate conflict effectively. As we often highlight, embodying Conflict Agility—Go In, Go Up, Go Out—can guide you in approaching conflict with kindness.
Go In: Reflect on what’s fuelling the conflict. Understand your thoughts and emotions.
Go Up: Gain perspective by identifying pain points, neutral elements, and opportunities for change.
Go Out: Take thoughtful action informed by greater insight gained from going in and up.
When we approach conflict with confidence and curiosity, we become more resilient. Conflict no longer undermines us but instead strengthens us. By moving beyond the illusion of resolution and holding the tension, we face the “elephant” head-on and transform conflict into a tool for growth and transformation.
What conflict are you avoiding to “keep the peace”?
What conflict have you “resolved” that might need to be revisited?
What would it look like to hold the tension in the conflicts you’re currently facing?
Staying Curious,
Jodi