THE IDEA
Allies who don’t know they’re fighting
Two departments in the same organisation. Both are trying to do good work. Both depend on each other. But one department’s decisions - made entirely for sensible internal reasons - create problems for the other. The other department, also acting sensibly, responds in a way that creates problems for the first. Neither intends to undermine the other. Neither even realises they’re doing it. But over time, the relationship deteriorates, trust erodes, and both start treating the other as an obstacle rather than a partner.
The Accidental Adversaries archetype describes situations where two parties have a genuine shared interest but whose independent actions gradually turn them into opponents. The damage isn’t caused by bad intentions, competition, or conflict. It’s caused by each party optimising for their own goals without seeing how their actions ripple across the boundary to affect the other.
What makes this archetype particularly frustrating is that everyone involved is acting reasonably within their own frame. No one is the villain. No one is making mistakes. The problem is structural: the way the two parties are connected means that sensible local decisions produce harmful systemic effects. By the time the relationship has soured enough to notice, both parties have a long list of grievances that feel entirely justified - because they are, locally. The damage happened in the space between them.
IN PRACTICE
Good intentions, broken partnerships
Sales and operations is the classic organisational example. Sales promises fast turnaround to win a deal - a perfectly rational move that serves their goals. Operations, already at capacity, has to rush the order, which disrupts their schedule and degrades quality for other customers. Operations responds by adding longer lead times to protect themselves - a perfectly rational move that serves their goals. Sales now has to compete with longer promises, loses deals, and blames operations for being inflexible. Operations blames sales for making unrealistic commitments. Both are right. Both are making the situation worse. Neither sees the loop.
Parents who co-parent after separation can fall into this pattern. One parent, wanting the children to have a great time during their weekend, lets them stay up late and eat more freely. The children come home tired and unsettled. The other parent, wanting to restore routine, tightens the rules. The children start comparing households: “Dad lets us stay up” or “Mum’s house is more fun.” Each parent’s response to the other’s approach widens the gap between them. Neither is trying to undermine the other. Both are trying to do what’s best for the children. The adversarial dynamic emerged from the structure, not from intent.
International trade partners can become accidental adversaries. Country A subsidises its agricultural exports to support its farmers - a domestic policy decision. Country B’s farmers can’t compete with the subsidised imports, so Country B imposes tariffs to protect its own agricultural sector. Country A sees the tariffs as protectionism and responds with retaliatory measures. Both countries started with legitimate domestic goals. Neither intended to harm the other’s economy. But each country’s internal optimisation created external harm, and the responses compounded it.
WORKING WITH THIS
See across the boundary
The first step is recognising that the other party isn’t the problem - the structure between you is. This is harder than it sounds, because by the time the pattern is visible, both sides usually have enough evidence of harm to justify suspicion. Stepping back from “what are they doing to us?” to “what are we each doing that affects the other?” is the critical shift.
Map the cross-boundary effects. Ask: when we make decisions for our own good, what are the side effects for the other party? And when they make decisions for their own good, what are the side effects for us? Draw it out. The loop almost always becomes visible when both parties can see it laid out together, rather than experiencing it from their own side only.
Build shared metrics. If each party is only measured on their own goals, the adversarial dynamic is structurally guaranteed. A metric that captures the health of the relationship or the outcome of the partnership - not just each party’s individual performance - creates an incentive to consider the cross-boundary effects. Sales and operations measured on customer satisfaction together behave very differently from sales measured on deals closed and operations measured on throughput.
THE INSIGHT
The enemy is the space between you
Accidental Adversaries don’t have a villain. They have a structure where two parties’ reasonable actions create unreasonable outcomes. The fix isn’t finding out who’s wrong. It’s seeing the loop that neither party can see from their own side.
RECOGNITION
Knowing it when you see it
You’re in an Accidental Adversaries pattern when two parties who should be allies have gradually become frustrated with each other, and both have legitimate complaints. When each side can explain exactly how the other is making their life harder - and they’re both right. When the relationship was fine at the start but has deteriorated without any single incident or betrayal. When someone says “they’re not deliberately trying to sabotage us, but it feels like it” - that’s the archetype talking.