Adversarial Approach

The adversarial approach to conflict is the approach typically taken when one views an opposing person or group as an adversary to be defeated. It is a competitive and confrontational way of engaging in conflict.

People using an adversarial approach tend to define the situation in judgmental terms. Thus, an attempt is made to blame the opponent for a wrong and to force the opponent to make amends. When lawyers use an adversarial approach in court (as the court-based adjudication process essentially requires them to do), they tend to frame the conflict as an all-or-nothing situation in which their clients are right and the opposing parties are wrong. Further, lawyers and others using the adversarial approach often use a confrontational and accusatory tone, which may escalate the conflict and worsen relations between the parties, even as the conflict is being resolved.
If a conflict involves the distribution of scarce resources, the adversarial approach usually assumes a win-lose situation: whatever one side gets, the other doesn't get. (This is also referred to as a zero-sum situation, because any plus for one side is a minus for the other.)
Although an adversarial approach may result in an adequate and fair outcome in many cases, it has significant drawbacks. One is the escalation of conflict and damage to relationships referred to above. Another is the loss of potential integrative or win-win solutions in which the parties work together as partners to solve a joint problem. This allows them to explore the differences between their positions (what they say they want or need) and their interests (what they really want or need). Often their interests are complementary, even though the positions are contradictory. When this occurs, an integrative approach to conflict resolution usually results in a better outcome than does an adversarial approach.
An example of this situation is a story commonly told in introductory classes on conflict management: Two children are squabbling over an orange. They engage in an adversarial battle, both explaining to the mother why one deserves the orange and the other doesn't. Exasperated, the mother cuts the orange in half and gives half to each child. This is a fair—and probably acceptable—outcome if the children both wanted to eat the orange. But in this story, one child wanted to eat the orange and the other wanted to use the rind for an art project. Had the children inquired about each other's reasons for wanting the orange (i.e., their interests), they would have determined that both could have gotten 100 percent of their interests met, not half, as they got from pursuing the adversarial approach.

When interests are consistent or compatible, integrative processes can often yield better outcomes than adversarial processes. In situations in which interests are contradictory, however, adversarial processes may be necessary. They can also be helpful in obtaining the leverage necessary to force an unwilling party to negotiate.