Over the past two weeks I have watched as the good intentions of the many have been pushed aside, torn asunder, and punished by the small minded egos of a selected few.
I have sat and watched as petty rivalries and historic bitterness have stood in the way of the greater good, and wellbeing of others.
A brief breakdown of what has happened is; one organisation was split into two separate organisations, but in some misplaced illusion of power, the first and older organisation tried to obstruct the newer organisation at every turn.
At the time of the split, I likened it to an amicable divorce; you know that ultimately you are going to end up being friends, but there is always a struggle over who gets the vase that neither of you like, but suddenly becomes very important; and of course, the battle to win the hearts and minds of those you both call friends.
So the two organisations went their separate ways, the first and older thinking that it is more important that the other, not even recognising the existence of the other, and thinking it was better than the younger.
This scenario I likened to a parent not being prepared to recognise that the child, who had been looking after the household in its absence, is really a fully fledged adult and more than capable of surviving in the world without direct supervision.
Extending these metaphors a little further, as with any family unity is important, as it makes the individuals within that family stronger, but it has to come with mutual respect, and not with one party thinking that it is superior in any way to the others.
And this is where the problem lies with the older of the two organisations.
It has allowed an unmitigated sense of self importance, fostered and perpetuated by an old guard attitude amongst its management, to stand in the way of progress.
It has lost sight of the fact that two united organisations are stronger than two organisations moving in the same direction, potentially with the same goals, but constantly bickering.
In my eyes, the conflict has become a struggle for the older organisation to obtain perceived power, but the irony is that the power that the older organisation seeks is an illusion.
The younger organisation is not without experience as it has been running its part of the older organisation in its absence for some time. Yet the older organisation still wishes to impose dominance over the younger organisation in any way it can.
In the absence of any other logical explanation, the driving force behind the behaviour of the older organisation can only be an ego fuelled, arrogant quest for perceived power.
The reality is that power does not lie with anyone who manages an organisation, but amongst those that make the organisation work, the members.
Without the efforts and commitment of the members, all organisations would collapse.
It is because of the tireless work of the members who volunteer their time and effort to the success of any organisation, that ultimately make it work.
If an organisation puts on a function, and nobody turns up, then that function is a failure as it is clearly not what the members want, and that ultimately adds to the failure of the organisers.
It is the members who hold the power. Those who run organisations would do well to remember that when beating their chests like a baboon, and puffing up their feathers like a peacock.
So when the younger organisation makes every attempt to reconcile any conflict with the older organisation, and it is met with pedantry, this does not help.
When the older organisation refuses to recognise the organisational structure of the younger committee, or drags its feet in an attempt to fain importance, then it only shows itself as an over-bloated buffoon.
The older organisation then sends out communications that can only be considered rude, pedantic, and obstructive, not only to the committee members of the younger organisation, but to the membership that it represents.
The younger organisation, in an attempt to keep the peace, chooses not to respond to this constant poking from the older, until it was specifically asked to respond to a direct request.
The younger organisation’s response is what the older organisation has been waiting for, providing them with new fuel by which they can claim indignation and deformation, all the time forgetting their own poorly veiled vitriol contained in their own correspondence.
More frustrating is, where were the members of the older organisation that wanted peace? Where were their voices of conciliation and mediation?
The people that said that they advocated reconciliation and dialogue were deafening in their silence. And when finally they did speak, it was only to speak of what had not been said, rather than what had hoped to be achieved.
So what would you do?
Would you continue to feed the egos of the older organisation by still driving towards reconciliation, despite their contempt and reluctance?
Or would you retract your hand of friendship and allow them to wallow in their own ego, and focus your attention back onto the younger organisation that continues to achieve success through its independence?
Well, what would you do?
