Non - Adversarial v. Adversarial Approaches to Dispute Resolution
A non-adversarial approach to problem solving allows parties to discuss issues relevant to their dispute, express their emotions, and turn a win-lose conflict into a win-win solution.
Mediation is a non-adversarial process. A mediator does not make decisions. A mediator is an impartial, third party, who assists two or more parties in dispute communicate with one another, express feelings, and focus on the mutual interests or problems of the parties in order to obtain a mutually acceptable settlement or solution.
The Social Security Administration, for example, maintains the application process for Social Security disability benefits and the hearing process are non-adversarial. The parties are the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration and the claimant, i.e., the person applying for disability benefits. The Social Security Administration alleges it is committed to assisting eligible claimants, whether represented by an attorney or not, obtain the benefits for which they are applying.
In contrast, the adversarial approach is one where the parties are in opposition, and even hostile to one another. Each party thinks he/she is correct, his/her argument is the strongest, and he/she will win. The adversarial approach produces a winner and a loser.
Litigation is an example of an adversarial approach. In a court of law, a judge or jury will determine who wins or loses. The rules of procedure provide each party may present its version of the facts. Unlike mediation, the adversarial process does not tolerate displays of emotion by the parties.
Where parties are represented by counsel, lawyers in opposition to one another argue their cases to the judge and/or jury in hopes of obtaining a decision in favor of their respective client. The judge's decision is based on the facts presented.





