This is a CTP of initiative: Arche Noah (Austria)
This critical turning point consists of a secession in the life of AN exactly seven years after the foundation of the association. Interviewee considers it was a CTP in several aspects. During the secession in 1997 the heart of the conflict comprised of “competing visions on how Arche Noah should operate”. The secession made an end to this competition and opened the window of opportunity for a new beginning. Although the visions were identical in terms of the original aims and objectives of the organisation what became more and more important during the escalation of events is the self-image, the inner and external image of the organisation: “It was critical because it was an open conflict that could be seen from the outside and from the members”. According to the interview the main stake was the picture of the association that is shown to insiders and outsiders. It became on open conflict zone with many members involved and played out in general assembly meetings. The management of the conflict became extremely important as it might have led to destruction of the whole initiative: “It might have led to a point of damage for the whole organisation”. This is critical not only because the organisation lose an important person, but on the long term with various new competencies coming after the other the question still remained ‘how to manage conflict’. The turning point happened in an organisation “ripe to change and at the same time it did not have everything to manage the process”. In the end a group of people who wanted to extend the governance of the organisation managed to rise to power. The conflict that was played out on the level of visions, membership and image, helped the organisation to turn towards a better perspective in all these aspects. In the end it was very important to completely integrate all the benefits that came from the founding period. The organisation managed to build a lot on the original ideas of the founders and their efforts have been fully integrated.
According to the interview several actors and developments contributed to this CTP to happen: “it took quite a lot of years after this process started.” The interviewee positioned herself as a participant observant in the conflict who has been already a member at that time: “I was not personally part of this conflict but I can tell I saw different visions - maybe not in aims and objectives, but the whole picture of AN as an association”. The CTP depended on several conditions. As for the human factor, the founder and managing president feared of “growing too quickly and lose control of developments that she managed to build up or that Arche Noah might turn into something that she would not like”. Also “her fear was to lose control of the organism that she knew very well From time to time other people with influence emerged around the organisation bringing in new competencies, perspectives. These circumstances had led up to a really critical point. One example is when a lady coming from project management clearly stated how to expand and professionalise the organisation – with her presence a completely alternative vision came into light. The paradox was that “nobody had the competence to see what phase we are in, and to find a way how to integrate these different visions into a new development”, and work together in fruitful way. Finally, the turning point went beyond people and different developments took over the process on the organisation level. As a next phase it brought new start based on good foundations. The watershed in the life of the organisation was silently followed by many watchers from the outside who felt rather inconvenient: “it felt like a second pioneer phase, something like a new start based on something very good but many watchers from the outside were irritated by the conflict and were also curious about the new philosophy, a new way of cooperating”. One important psychological circumstance was that some of those who stayed after the founder left felt some sort of guilt about it (symbolic “matricide”). It turned out that guilt was a good motivation to seek ways forward that are “good enough to justify”: “there is also the psychological effect that when a founding person leaves then those who stay feel guilt, and this is not a positive but a strong motor to be good enough and get over this organisational friction”.
A range of earlier events slowly evoked the CTP. As members were recruited the need for a change from person focussed governance to team-centred perspective became gradually evident: “volunteers around Nancy became more important than the rest, and started to compete who will be more successful”. Finally, the secession happened “in an open conflict on the general assembly meetings: two of them until the final decision was taken”. Several events were evoked by the CTP. Before Nancy left, a not profit enterprise was founded in 1997 under the supervision of the organisation to help find practical solution partly because of new fields of activities, but the idea was also the separate the conflicting parties in two different entities. Apparently this strategy failed, but the enterprise still exists and serves as an important vehicle: “The non-profit enterprise belongs 100 percent to the association. The reasons to do that was to find solution to the conflict and separate the people to different organisations but it did not work out.” The critical turning point “ended when a new chair was elected” in 1997.
Many open discussions were involved with the CTP that caused substantial contestation during the transition. The struggle was “a very inner process” around the alternative how to further develop the organisation. External organisations were not involved in this process, only individual members, employees and volunteers of AN. As Nancy founded AN together with circa 30 people and built up the first structures, “she probably considered this organisation almost like her ‘baby’, like ‘hers´”. This also implies that she alone carried all competencies, and nobody knew things better than her. As new people started to bring in other ideas and wanted change in her vision it caused a threat as it went beyond her reach. AN was at that time a small group of people depending very much on their own decisions and personally on each other. People gave a lot of input and time, and the “currency” that they are paid back with is identification, sense, but also the questions of status and respect became very central: “there are people there and they are giving lot of input and getting back a lot, but what became more important is respect – and if this feeling of status and respect is linked very much to the personal vision than the idea of changing the vision of a person is a threat to the whole organisation”. Only by changing the vision of the person could help but this did not succeed. The contestation easily reached an existential level as they were all volunteers in AN. Finally, it was not possible to propose something else and the contestation was finally overcome by Nancy’s leaving AN: “other voices were stronger”.
Nobody has seen the CTP coming. Nobody anticipated such dramatic change. The whole change was completely unplanned. Still, it was very much considered a critical turning point already at that time as it all went into a very emotional level and finally the need for the secession became so evident for everybody: “there was not much money involved, people volunteered so it was very idealistic but it made the organisation very sensitive to the status of the person”. From that point “it was very evident for everybody that it is a critical turning point”.
The CTP presented many lessons for the organisation that also informed later practice. As a main learning point the interview identified personal responsibility, but immediate lessons also went beyond personal: “For those who stayed in AN there was the problem how to explain and show that the core vision is safe and they keep the focus of all activities. Everybody felt it was very challenging and the organisation is dependent on big number of supporters.” On the longer run as the interviewee pointed out an organism creates its own agency beyond personalities: “what should be learned (but it is not easy) how much or how little personality means to an organisation”. On the positive side it was mentioned that “the team immediately started to collaborate”. As for the negative effects, “Nancy was very much engaged and burning for the idea and she had a network with newly founded ENGOs and she was very good in networking. And maybe that was lost when she left: many former friends were not anymore neutral to the new organisation and also lack of competence of the new team contributed to the negative effects.” By only looking at the hard facts this CTP led to clear expansion on the organisational level: the multiplication of projects, and activities starting to grow in numbers, members, etc. but “it cost us a lot of time to reach the same point.” So as a main learning point it was emphasized to look between the lines and anticipate necessary steps proactively, constructively and not waiting until conflict starts. Finally, this event did not lead to any specific negative contribution in AN goals. The original values were still well kept. What was lost is Nancy as an engaged personality with a huge network in ENGOs. Finally, a big lesson was that the new team really struggled with a lack of competency and it caused problem with other stakeholders. Those who stayed were preoccupied with the development of the organisation itself – all in all it cost a lot of time and energy to reach to the same point of cooperation.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
