Infighting is nothing new in the history of organisations. It has featured within political parties, trade unions and some civil society organisations. Infighting is all about an internal battle where there is a fight with allies or other members of the same group. It is characterised by bitterness, divisions, resentment, disagreement, dissension, friction and even disunity.
Within the work environment, there is what is known as bureaucratic infighting. This type of infighting which exists within the corporate sector, is linked to competitiveness, where the struggle is for access to resources and the maintaining of control. Invariably, there is a link to be made with competition between people within a company or organisation. Here, battle lines become drawn when the parties set out at all costs to improve their own position or to get agreement for their ideas.
Infighting in an organisation or enterprise is the catalyst for destroying confidence and morale. It is an undesirable element which can harm the image, integrity and stability of an organisation. More often than not, infighting results as a consequence of poor communication, where there is a clash of egos, stubbornness, unreasonable demands being made, and where there is an aversion to criticisms which are levied.
Organisations do not stand to benefit when a state of anarchy exists. In addressing internal differences, the parties to the dispute should not become engaged in a brawl, acts of lawlessness and defiance that border on civil disobedience, or any other action which constitutes a breach of the law. Resorting to character assassinations and the ridiculing of the individual should not be entertained. All of this behaviour is not only horrendous but outrageous.
It is important to understand that infighting within an organisation requires conflict resolution strategies to be engaged. As is done within the industrial relations practice, the contending parties should first attempt to address the matter in-house, in hopes of finding a resolution. Where there is a deadlock, there is the recourse to the process of conciliation, mediation or arbitration.
Conflict is as inevitable in life as it is within organisations and enterprises. How it is handled is what matters. The United States Institute of Peace perceives conflict as “an inevitable aspect of human interaction”, which occurs “when two or more individuals or groups pursue mutually incompatible goals”. It is to be expected that an escalation of the divide will only occur when the contending parties are prone to pursuing an aggressive approach rather than a passive approach to resolving the matter at hand. This is where stubbornness, overzealousness, uncontrollable emotions and the failure to reason, dominate over rational thinking.
The aggressive behaviours which emerge can be directly linked to frustration. Frustration is described as an emotional reaction which is generated in individuals usually when certain goals and expectations are not met. In responding to whatever has given rise to internal frustration, the divided parties ought to be conscious that there is a lot to lose by washing their dirty linen in public. By placing the matter in the public domain, the matter is sure to be sensationalised and the truth possibly distorted.
Dennis De Peiza, a veteran trade unionist, is a labour and employee relations consultant with Regional Management Services Inc.
