This investigation examined 620 metaphorical conflict expressions generated by 169 participants who either were employed full-time or had previous work experience. First-order metaphorical (schema) analyses indicated that participants predominately used "conflict is impotence" schemas. No sex differences emerged in either schemas or in second-order (linguistic) analyses of metaphorical expresswns. However, participants reported dzffhrent schemas, depending on the conflict context, but particularlyfor the supervisor and departmental member contexts. The supervisor context also exhibited a pattern of linguistic choices, suggesting that maleandfemalerespondentsobj~ctified theirsupmsors. Finally, respondents reportedgreaterfrequency and intensity of conflicts infmnily contexts than in any of the work contexts.raditional organizational and interpersonal conflict research has been criticized as being atheoretical, fraught with social desir-T ability effects, and narrow because of its focus on styles and strategies useful for gaining resources (Conrad, 1991;Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 1993;Putnam & Poole, 1987;Wilson & Waltman, 1988). As we move past conflict styles and strategies research, we have begun to reconsider the concept of conflict in general and what conflict means to different groups. In challenging assumptions about conflict, we question our cultural biases toward action-oriented styles, our limited exploration of everyday mundane conflict, and our inadequate understandings of how women and men engage in conflict as embodied, gendered individuals PatriceM. Buzzanell (Ph.D., 1987, Purdue University) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at Northern Illinois University. Nancy A. Burrell (Ph.D., 1987, Michigan State University) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. The authors thank Steve Wilson, RobertMcF' hee, and Mike Allen for assistance on this project and appreciate the suggestions of the anonymous reviewers who challenged the authors to distinguish among cognitive conflict constructs and to extend implications of this research. The authors also acknowledge the collaborative effort in the conduct and reporting of thii study.