It is important therefore, that we make a conscious decision to view all members of our teams as assets instead of adversaries. Once one feels a certain antipathy to another, it is time to inspect the cause of such. There are myriad reasons that come up on this evaluation. It can be for something as insignificant as the hairstyle the person wore at first introduction, to the name a person bears, that has draws on emotional past experiences. Perhaps at first meeting, the individual had dreadlocks, which might remind of a certain past neighbour who smoke dagga and made noise. This association might render unconscious judgement and instant dislike. 

Once the source of antipathy has been diagnosed, there are two questions that arise, the first is whether the dislike is avertable, if it is then a conscious decision to avert must be made. If the dislike is not avertable, the next question is whether such dislike has bearing on the productivity and harmony of the team. It almost goes without saying that antipathy between two members of a team does not bode well for the smooth execution of the team’s mandate. An adversarial relationship between members of the same team is bound to create teams pitting against each other in the said team. 

It becomes imperative to turn an adversary to an asset. Otherwise, work will go less smoothly and take much more time. Points put across by one are bound to be queried automatically without actually thinking about their positive aspects.  This can lead to emotive rather than logical discussions. 

When we think of assets, we think of their value to us. Concentrating on the reasons that an individual can be an asset is one of making that individual as an asset. In a team there are reasons that each player has been identified as part of the team. They have specific skills and competencies that are needed to complete the team. More than that, each person has an individual perspective that is a result of their particular experiences that can bring value to the work being done. Realising this point, and making an effort to learn from the experiences of colleagues, leads to a more robust internalisation of experiences that can be sources of education. 

It can also lead to an appreciation of positive aspects of a person’s character that were previously ignored. And it might just turn to a genuine appreciation of a person as an asset. 

It is important that a person has more assets than adversaries in life. It does not only make the workplace a better place to be, but it make life generally much happier. 

Mosotho oa heso, in much the same way as you can turn your adversaries into assets or friends, you also have a responsibility to be more accommodating, do that you too can be an asset rather than an adversary of others. 

The employee on the other hand, might be of the opinion that the employer is taking advantage of the extra time he puts in and does not pay for it. He might feel that he is being denied benefits formally, that all in the industry seem to be receiving. He therefore decides to just use the company resources anyway. It might begin with small things, like the company telephone for personal business, it escalates to company vehicle and fuel to transport children to school after the holidays, and ends up as using company resources to party or perform side business. The employee might even feel that the employer is overly sensitive in telling him how to talk to people, and how to behave outside work hours. 

In some industries, there is a need for a vehicle to be able to perform the day to day activities of the company. Some companies might choose to avail vehicles to employees, while others might pay employees extra to use their own. Some companies however use both, having different deals for different employees. It is not surprising in these instances that some employees might become disgruntled, they might see this as an unfair situation. Those not receiving the benefit of money for their vehicles might take less than good care of the company vehicle than is necessary. While those that have to use their own vehicles, might limit the travelling boundaries of their vehicle. 

There are of course many different examples of this defrauding. It differs depending on the rank and file, depending on the industry, the size of the company and a host of other considerations. But once each of these parties starts feeling like they are being taken advantage of by the other, an animosity develops in the relationship. And the parties that initially had a mutual goal, have side snide goals to “teach” each other. To show the other who is in control of the situation. 

Each of these parties might in actual fact have legitimate reason for their expectation of the other. For instance an organisation that promotes a message about driving safely would certainly frown on employees that drove under the influence of drugs and/ or alcohol. An employee might on the other hand feel that what they do in their time is their own business. And it is. But it does affect the way other parties might view the sincerity and integrity of the organisation. 

All these and many other are causes for disturbance in the operation of the company. Our stitch in time, is having regulating policies and procedures that apply to all people equally. These must be specific enough to address issues can cause contention. Our needle is having the knowledge to be able to decide what the potential areas of contention within our company are. 

Regardless of how small an organisation or company is, as soon as there are more than 2 people engaged in its operation, there is need for clear policies and procedures. There is need for uniformity on how employees are treated. Justifiable reasons for diversion from this uniformity must be understood by all parties. 

A stitch in time, in the form of policy, contracts, codes, regulations, saves the relationship between employer and employee. It save the distraction from normal  and expected operations to sticky labour issues.