Adversarial | Definition of Adversarial by Merriam-Webster
All couples fall into avoidant or adversarial modes sometimes. Dr John Gottman, a world leader in relationship counselling, can watch. To succeed, executives must manage a myriad of relationships. The adversarial system or adversary system is a legal system used in the common law countries where two advocates represent their parties' case or position.
While information is withheld from each other in an adversarial relationship; in a partnership relationship, it is shared to make problem solving easier.
However, when the business is based in a place where there is conflict and a business environment that is not transparent and prone to corruption, most companies opt for an adversarial approach to lessen the risks to their business. Businesses often grab every opportunity they have to achieve instant benefits in a short period of time rather than opt for a long-term relationship which can cause losses for them.The Adversarial Relationship between Business and Government
The most conventional business relationship in the right environment, though, is a partnership relationship. An adversarial relationship in business is one wherein a company treats clients, customers, and other companies they deal with as enemies while a partnership relationship in business is one wherein clients, customers, and other companies are considered as partners.
In a partnership relationship, companies trust each other while there is little or no trust in an adversarial relationship. Whereas information is shared in a partnership relationship, it is withheld in an adversarial relationship.
Accurate diagnosis is difficult because most enemies masquerade as adversaries. For example, consider the following remark: Distinguishing between enemies and adversaries is crucial because the two types of relationship require completely different strategies. Details of each are discussed in the following two mistakes. Failing to Convert Adversaries Into Allies Adversaries can quickly become allies when it serves their self-interest.
At many companies, the vice president of sales has an antagonistic relationship with the head of manufacturing because the functional responsibilities of the two positions often require those executives to lock horns, especially if manufacturing cannot fill orders in the time frame that salespeople would like.
Remember that all relationships with adversaries and allies are contingency-based. Change the contingencies and you change the relationship. But many executives convert their adversaries into enemies instead of allies. Consider Sheila, the general counsel of a biotech company, who was fired by the CEO.
Difference Between Adversarial and Partnership Relationship in Business
The experience was painful and humiliating — she was escorted out the door by security guards — making it difficult for her to let go of her feelings of anger. Two years after her dismissal, she ran into the CEO at an association function. He smiled and extended his hand, but she refused to shake it and walked away. Later, when Sheila was being considered for a board position at another organization, the CEO went out of his way to give her a negative reference.
After her firing, she could have instead used the CEO as an ally by asking him for assistance in her job search.
Adversarial system - Wikipedia
The simple but painful lesson for Sheila is that treating someone like an enemy will eventually turn that person into one. Trying to Convert Enemies Executives often expend considerable resources, including valuable political capital, trying to convert enemies into allies, but that effort is usually futile.
Powerful emotional bonds exist between enemies, whose conflict typically provides self-definition and predictability in an uncertain world. Those bonds can be extremely difficult to break. In other words, enemies tend to remain enemies. When executives must deal with an enemy, they should first look for any allies or neutrals around that person.
The goal is to isolate the enemy politically, thus defusing his power at least for the time being. Consider Paula, the director of a critical profit-and-loss center, who became anxious and worried when Ralph, one of her peers, was promoted to become her boss. The two had a hostile relationship, and her worst fears were confirmed when she asked her new boss how she could best be of assistance. Initially, her bet paid off, as Ralph subsequently became much more cordial.
Often, though, such tactics are merely stopgap measures because of the unconditional nature of enemy relationships.
As it turned out, Ralph eventually created a situation that was untenable for Paula, leading to her resignation.
Taking Allies for Granted Perhaps the biggest mistake that executives make in managing their relationships is that they fail to maintain important alliances.
Remember that relationships with allies are contingency-based, so their support should never be taken for granted. The goal is this: WainwrightU.
- Adversarial purchasing
- Adversarial system
One of the most significant differences between the adversarial system and the inquisitorial system occurs when a criminal defendant admits to the crime. In an adversarial system, there is no more controversy and the case proceeds to sentencing; though in many jurisdictions the defendant must have allocution of her or his crime; an obviously false confession will not be accepted even in common law courts.
By contrast, in an inquisitorial system, the fact that the defendant has confessed is merely one more fact that is entered into evidence, and a confession by the defendant does not remove the requirement that the prosecution present a full case. This allows for plea bargaining in adversarial systems in a way that is difficult or impossible in inquisitional system, and many felony cases in the United States are handled without trial through such plea bargains.
In some adversarial legislative systems, the court is permitted to make inferences on an accused's failure to face cross-examination or to answer a particular question.
This obviously limits the usefulness of silence as a tactic by the defense. In England the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act allowed such inferences to be made for the first time in England and Wales it was already possible in Scotland under the rule of criminative circumstances. This change was disparaged by critics as an end to the 'right to silence', though in fact an accused still has the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to take the stand.
The criticism reflects the idea that if the accused can be inferred to be guilty by exercising their right to silence, it no longer confers the protection intended by such a right. In the United States, the Fifth Amendment has been interpreted to prohibit a jury from drawing a negative inference based on the defendant's invocation of his right not to testify, and the jury must be so instructed if the defendant requests.
Lord Devlin in The Judge said: It is questionable that the results would be different if cases were conducted under the differing approaches; in fact no statistics exist that can show whether or not these systems would come to the same results.
However, these approaches are often a matter of national pride and there are opinions amongst jurists about the merits of the differing approaches and their drawbacks as well. Proponents of the adversarial system often argue that the system is more fair and less prone to abuse than the inquisitional approach, because it allows less room for the state to be biased against the defendant. It also allows most private litigants to settle their disputes in an amicable manner through discovery and pre-trial settlements in which non-contested facts are agreed upon and not dealt with during the trial process.
In addition, adversarial procedure defenders argue that the inquisitorial court systems are overly institutionalized and removed from the average citizen.