This is a CTP of initiative: Ecovillage Findhorn (UK)
In 2000 the Findhorn Foundation had to make large investments for renovation. Debts had been generated till they came close to bankruptcy. In the large, old ‘Cluny Hill’ which is mainly used as education centre, the electricity had to be renewed as well as the entrance to ‘The Park’ because of increasing traffic.
The foundation suddenly experienced financial pressure. This caused a reflection of the working system. It turned out, that people were dissatisfied with consensus decision making perceiving it as ineffective. In reaction to this the management temporarily has changed the decision making structures for a year. This has led to a later adjustment of the governance system of the Foundation, which is explained by the interviewee:
“The management decided to take over the decision making by take it away from the Foundation body. Before, it had been consensus decision making – a bit chaotic and not very effective. So the management received the power for a year to lead the Foundation out of the danger of bankruptcy.
After a year, the workers were asked if they want to take back the decision making. They had a discussion and an ‘attunement’ and agreed to take it back – except one person who was the chair of the management. She preferred to have decision making rather in a smaller circle.
Then we created the FF council as a new body. It allowed long term co-workers to become members of this council” (Interview Dürten Lau).
After the year when management had successfully prevented the bankruptcy, the decision making system was slightly changed due to the wish of the management chair. The frame for decision-making was changed to enforce more responsible decisions by only accepting long-term, committed staff members for deciding on the budget.
The internal crisis was caused through a threat of bankruptcy. A more efficient way of decision making was necessary for the Findhorn Foundation. It was agreed and accepted by the community that the power was handed over to the management team which successfully steered the Foundation out of the financial problems.
The CTP has occurred around the issue of trusting a group of experienced experts to take decisions on their own. It valued long-term members and it was accepted to install a kind of hierarchy between long-term members and newcomers.
“We gave the decision making to management; instead of deciding every little detail with the Foundation board. The workers know much better what the issues are. The Foundation management cooperates with the Foundation board and the council. Management got more freedom to take their own choices and there is more communication. Big decisions were given back to the council. If the council would not agree, they would improve the suggestion. Only people who are there for a year can be part of decision making, and they have to commit to attend every meeting. Before, newcomers could decide on the budget, now this has changed. Only members and those who are here for a year and commit to attend the meetings at least for 4 months can decide on the budget. This was a whole new way of decision making and governance” (Interview Dürten Lau).
2000 Findhorn Foundation close to bankruptcy because of large renovation investments
2001 reforming of the decision making system
First, the conflicts had emerged around the issues of commitment and responsibility. The decision-making system so far gave equal power to all staff members. It turned out that it did not consider the differences in engagement, knowledge, experience, and skills amongst the staff members.
Another central issue had arisen due to team culture which can fit the high expectations of community and communication that the Findhorn Foundation is teaching.
“It was acknowledged that creating a culture is also an active work. The FF cannot just work through management decision alone, it need a culture of trust and communicating with each other. We sharpened up the meeting culture towards more responsibility” (Interview Dürten Lau).
After the council was implemented, it started acknowledging and including the long-term members into decisions. Today however, the council is not so active any more.
“I would drop the council and ask people with what organisational form they come up. Everything has its own time.” (Interview Dürten Lau).
The later reform of the decision making system could not really be anticipated. The year when the management team took over was seen as a preliminary rescue due to the financial difficulties. The turning point had been seen because of the financial crises in the first place, while awareness that it had triggered an evolutionary step in governance had been recognised only later.
Findhorn Foundation had gone through a number of turning points on adapting the decision making system. The re-invention in 1996 (compare CTP4) was not completely realised and parts of these issues came up again during this phase.
Coming from a consensus based decision making system, the learning for the FF was integrating and building on responsibility, commitment and expertise as important basics of a functioning decision making system. The experience of nearly bankruptcy had led to the insight that that experienced staff members need to have a greater weight in the decision making which seemed contradicting with the idealistic aim of equality and consensus.
“We made a very wise decision for my perception. We recognised the need to consider a system that also serves our leaders.” (Interview Dürten Lau).
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
