Yep, 20% does feel too high to me. But I think it’s hard to define infighting. The RSPCA stuff is an obvious example of it, but depending on how far you broaden the definition I feel some sympathy for the view that a fair amount of energy is wasted on it. I think Melanie Joy has worked with a number of orgs and gotten insight that others might not get in their positions, especially granters.
Things coming to my mind on this are a bit more day-to-day/mundane than your things:
- I think groups competing for funds at a country level, regional level and global level does create resentment in those that get more funds or support, and this can result in groups working together less well or not getting on because they view each other as competitors - In some campaigns it is not clear who ‘won’ due to multiple orgs targeting companies, with many wanting the recognition/credit, or to be the first to announce it to supporters/media. It’s plausible that this creates tension among orgs, that is not helpful - Groups disagreeing on theories of change, for example where we should put resources—some might think everything should go on accountability and try and turn others against orgs that disagree with this. Or some might be annoyed that other groups are too nice and won’t give up their ‘good’ relationships with companies, seeing them as threatening important co-campaigns, which can fracture collaboration - Departmental disagreements within orgs, with corporate engagement teams not wanting campaign teams to go after companies, causing fragile relationships and resentment with teams unable to properly advance their work. In my experience this has happened in non EA style orgs.
I’m not arguing strongly that infighting is a huge problem. But I do think it’s plausible that the above scenarios are not very rare, and even if individually some feel insignificant I think they are likely unhelpful collectively
Yep, 20% does feel too high to me. But I think it’s hard to define infighting. The RSPCA stuff is an obvious example of it, but depending on how far you broaden the definition I feel some sympathy for the view that a fair amount of energy is wasted on it. I think Melanie Joy has worked with a number of orgs and gotten insight that others might not get in their positions, especially granters.
Things coming to my mind on this are a bit more day-to-day/mundane than your things:
- I think groups competing for funds at a country level, regional level and global level does create resentment in those that get more funds or support, and this can result in groups working together less well or not getting on because they view each other as competitors
- In some campaigns it is not clear who ‘won’ due to multiple orgs targeting companies, with many wanting the recognition/credit, or to be the first to announce it to supporters/media. It’s plausible that this creates tension among orgs, that is not helpful
- Groups disagreeing on theories of change, for example where we should put resources—some might think everything should go on accountability and try and turn others against orgs that disagree with this. Or some might be annoyed that other groups are too nice and won’t give up their ‘good’ relationships with companies, seeing them as threatening important co-campaigns, which can fracture collaboration
- Departmental disagreements within orgs, with corporate engagement teams not wanting campaign teams to go after companies, causing fragile relationships and resentment with teams unable to properly advance their work. In my experience this has happened in non EA style orgs.
I’m not arguing strongly that infighting is a huge problem. But I do think it’s plausible that the above scenarios are not very rare, and even if individually some feel insignificant I think they are likely unhelpful collectively