Hocker's View Of Conflict

There is no trying to escape from conflict because it is bound to occur. What is conflict? Hocker and Wilmot (2001) view conflict as, “An expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals” (p. 9). To simply put it conflict is when difference matters. To further explain, parties are dependent on each other because it is the disagreement itself that created the conflict in the first place which leads to an expressed struggle. Within the conflict parties are perceived to have incompatible goals and scarce resources. Perceived incompatible goals are usually seen as having a winner and a loser. Incompatible goals is described as

parties perceiving that they cannot each get what they want or need. Furthermore, scarce resources are things such as vitality, currency, and time that can produce conflict when there is an inadequate amount of these resources to go around. Lastly, interference can be seen as each party interfering with the actions and concerns of each other.
The different ways people respond to a conflict can determine various outcomes.

The way someone manages a difference can make conflict turn into a sphere of harm or a sphere of value. The sphere of harm is when differences are managed in destructive and damaging ways. Littlejohn states (2014) states, “Conflicts are managed so badly that damage is done to people, relationships, and, indeed, entire social worlds” (p. 188). If a party were to react to an indifference by using physical or verbal violence the conflict would move into the sphere of harm. On the other hand, the sphere of value is when differences are significant, but not controversial. Instead, parties value the difference, appreciate it and view it as a positive asset. The goal of conflict is to move from the sphere of harm to the sphere of

value.
Moving from harm to value in a conflict can fluctuate depending if it based on a personal or group context.

One difference is parties will not speak to each other the same say depending on the environment. Domenici and Littlejohn (2007) explain, “You will not communicate the same way with your best friend, son or daughter, co-worker, or professor” (p. 32). For example, in a group setting, a student might not be as verbally violent with other students as if there were two sisters having a dispute in a personal context. Moreover, in a group context parties may hold back opinions due to the fact of not know each other as well as they might in a personal setting. If parties hold back on what is said less damage can be done to the relationships and people making it easier to move to the sphere of value. On the other hand, parties involved in a personal context may know each other well enough to feel the right to push the issue and/or issues more so than in a group. The more parties know each other the easier it is to cause additional damage to peers, relationships and social worlds, creating a sphere of harm. With that being said in this case moving from the sphere of harm to value may be faster and/or easier in a group context, while in a personal context it may require extra time and effort. In addition, group contexts have additional parties involved with diverse values and beliefs to respect. When involved in a conflict parties have to take people’s religion, culture and age

into consideration and adapt to the different situations.
While there are more differences in moving from harm to value in conflict based on personal or group contexts there are similarities as well. In both group and personal contexts, parties have to learn to adapt to certain situations. People who stick to doing one of conflict will not easily move from harm to value parties need to be adaptive to whatever situation comes their way. Additionally, the concept of face can play into both personal and group conflicts. Face is how you want to be treated, want to be seen, and how you treat others. Face can be seen as vulnerable during a conflict because it has a great amount of value. Despite being in a personal or group setting, if parties threaten face the conflict can escalate, create an aggressive manner to the other party and move into the sphere of harm. During conflicts these facework behaviors help to protect face, threaten another’s face, or to resolve conflict. Guan, Kim, and Park (2012), explain, “In other words, the more concerned people are about their own face needs in general, the more likely they are to use more aggressive approaches to cope with the situation, at the expense of the other person’s face” (p. 1112). In contrast, someone who wants to have a positive face and self-image will avoid further interaction which could mean parties are willing to accept and work with the differences moving into the sphere of value.
The way people manage differences with one another determines whether the outcome will be valuable or harmful. The transition from harm to value could be altered depending on the damage to peers, relationships, and social worlds triggered by the sphere of harm. Conflict does not always need to be seen in a negative connotation, in spite of some detrimental outcomes it gives parties the ability to learn and see past other people’s differences in case of reoccurring conflicts. The cause of conflict is due to differences between one another, but someone’s reaction to the differences is what makes them a unique individual. The goal with every conflict is to move from the sphere of harm to the sphere of value.