The Circle of Con ict was originally theorized to support mediations.

This
makes it a exible tool to utilize in con ict resolution. The circle, divided into
ve components, illustrates the potential sources of con ict in negotiations.
Understanding the impact of imbalances within the circle forces all parties to
rst identify and diagnose the source(s) of con ict, and then parley for
resolution. Listed below are the characteristics of each component within
Moore’s circle of con ict

Interest Con ict

In any negotiation, people will voice what they want; or what we call their
‘position’. Interests are their motivations, or the why. They are what drives
one’s position and they will often be challenged. Understanding party
interests and proposing solutions to their issues and fears will play a vital role
in con ict resolution

Structural Con ict

Perceived power inequality, competition over limited resources, and divergent

interests amongst groups are the fundamental factors that contribute to
structural con icts. External factors make one or all parties perceive the other
to be in a stronger, more privileged position. For example, meetings between
an employer and their workers union see each other as having the upper
hand in negotiations when in reality, both need each other to survive

Intervention Strategies

• Re ne and/or change roles

• Eliminate and replace destructive patterns of behavior
• Redistribute ownership and control of goods
• Introduce a fair decision-making process
• Transition from position based to interest based negotiation (focus more on
the problem, not the person)
• Change the way how parties in uence each other (less extortion, more
permission
• Rede ne external pressures

Data Con ict

This con ict is based on the possession of information, or lack thereof.

Inaccurate information and the different interpretations of data are grounds for
con ict. Examples of data con ict are legal disputes arising from ambiguous
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
fl
fl
fl
fl
)

fl
fl
s

fl
s

fl
s

fl
:

fl
fl
fl
,

fl
,

fl
.

 interpretation of the law, con icts based on contradictory research results, or

on false information, such as hearsay. Interventions are necessary to avoid a
con ict evolving into a destructive one

Intervention Strategies

• Unify data
• Select relevant information to the speci c con ict
• Consent on one data collection process
• Form a common criteria for the evaluation of the data
• Seek expert opinions in the case of stagnation

Relationship Con ict

Parties with previous negative experiences with each other are most prone to
relationship con icts. Fueled by emotion, stereotyping the opposing side,
personal animosities, and poor communication contribute to these con icts.
Relationship con icts do not give much leeway for parties to consent;
interventions are needed

Intervention Strategies

• Create procedures for when parties become too emotionally invested

• Encourage parties to verbalize their emotions (rather than acting out)
• Change how parties perceive each other
• Build a positive image
• Eliminate repetitive negative behavior by changing the structure
• Inspire a positive approach to the problem

Value Con ic

Much like interest con icts, value con icts arise because parties have
different values and principles. Unlike interests however, values are
nonnegotiable and unwavering because they are the foundation of personal
identity. Individuals, let alone parties, will swiftly defend their values when
challenged. Value con icts do not give parties an opportunity to come to an
agreement making interventions, necessary

Intervention Strategies

• Avoid de ning the issue by value

• Allow the parties to agree and disagree
fl
fi
,

fl
t

fl
fl
fl
fl
,

fl
s

fl
,

fl
.

fi
,

fl
.

fl
• Create a sphere of in uence in which one kind of value dominates
• Seek a superior goal for both partie

fl
s