This is a CTP of initiative: Transition Town Tooting (UK)
Transition Town Tooting was established in a very fluid way. They didn’t worry too much about structure and documentation. Lucy Neal was nominally the lead. She had the initial idea and kicked it off as an organization, but she wasn’t the chair.
After being established for about a year, they wanted to find some money. That was a tipping point because it meant that they needed a basic organizational constitution with a nominated chair and a treasurer. Lucy asked Hilary to be the co-chair with her. Someone else who was an accountant agreed to be the treasurer.
The initial conception of the co-chair process was that one would step down at a time, so that there was some continuity in the leadership of the organisation. Lucy and Hillary did the first two years together.
It was CTP because it established a formal structure for TTT based on collaboration (e.g. through co-chairing) that carries on into other areas of their work. This brought a series of important benefits: a) it effectively meant that they could access funding etc., and b) it helped in spreading the load of work (i.e. having someone else to share discussions with, not having to be at every meeting, having someone to bounce ideas off, having two different types of people for people to approach if there is an issue and, thus, two different takes on issues, etc.).
Each time there is such an organizational change, it is a potential turning point as it implicates a new form of leadership.
The idea of co-chairing came from Lucy because she had worked collaboratively on many occasions. It was something that had been a significant part of her professional life – as co-director of the London International Festival of Theatre – so she brought that concept to TTT.
Lucy and Hilary swim together at Tooting Bec Lido (an open air swimming pool) which is how they first met. Lucy gave Hilary a pair of cheap flip-flops from Tooting market. Hilary had a very significant personal moment wearing the flip-flops: When she joined Transition, she wasn’t really sure why she was involved or what she was doing. But there was a moment during one November when she was sat outdoors with these flip-flops on, thinking “OK so the weather is warmer than it should be, hence I have got my flip flops on, but my flip flops are part of the problem.” That was a ‘lightbulb’ moment which convinced her that she should be involved in Transition Town Tooting.
Lucy and Hilary had worked together before and were complementary to each other. There wasn’t much other interest, people were just grateful that people were willing to do it. And then some nervousness after three years when they both wanted to step down.
There were not many events leading up to the establishment of co-chairing, apart from the fact that TTT had been initiated and there was the need for a more formalized structure to access grant funding.
The interviewee suggested that it was hard to identify specific consequent events – perhaps apart from the further transitions in co-chairs. This first transition occurred when both Hillary and Lucy wanted to step down at the same point after three years. There was a certain amount of nervousness and a concern about “founders’ syndrome” as they ‘held’ quite a lot in the first few years. It felt like a large percentage of what was happening. They were both really clear that they should step down because it would otherwise compound the problem and it would continue to drift and makes it more embedded that you are the only people who can do that role.
Co-chairing has helped the group continue and develop, and has contributed to its longevity as part of a range of other factors (e.g. not being too formal with the structure and aims) or trying to get too many theme groups established. They have been more fluid and organic, including at the core group, which means that different people have stepped up and brought their experience and a sense of responsibility at different times.
Someone described each set of new co-chairs as a new ring on a tree – with the old chairs as the old rings. It gives the initiative a bit more stability. The old co-chairs still get involved and don’t disappear. Hilary is trying to get co-chairing adopted on the board of the Transition Network globally. They are likely to move to a co-chair system based on the experience and model of TTT.
They recently did a review of the structure and somebody made a comment about being the “last pin standing” which is that “horrible feeling” when you are involved in a project and everyone else is really busy and you are the only one holding it. So with projects they try to have a co-pin (play on words – “coping”) so it is a lot easier if there is someone alongside you. It also feeds into the generally collaborative nature of Transition.
Co-chairing has taken on a different form with each new set of co-chairs. They have taken different roles or responsibilities. Sometimes they have had to take on other roles (e.g. that of secretary or treasurer) which has been too much. There has also been different dynamics. How they manage it between them has changed and reflects how people work together. It means you don’t get embedded in one way of doing things. All the former co-chairs are part of an informal group called the Elders. They don’t meet, but sometimes they get emailed for their advice or views on particular issue (e.g. something that might be political, or might touch on something that has happened in the past or even as a more general sounding board).
It is potentially easier to find one rather than two chairs, so it would be good if they can get back to being staggered but she is not sure if one of the current ones will be willing to stay on for the extra year.
There wasn’t any disagreement at the beginning. People were just glad that they were stepping up and taking responsibility for leading the organization.
The first transition in co-chairing did cause some minor tensions because both Hilary and Lucy wanted to step down at the same time. Hilary suggests that this did have some validity because she had been leading since the get-go. But Hilary was very clear that she didn’t want to carry on and she had to go with her gut feeling.
There have been occasional difficulties when the working relationship has not been going very smoothly between the two co-chairs. Any people working together will have instances when they disagree over an issue, or when one is busier than the other. This is common in small voluntary type organisations.
When people want to step down, there has sometimes been a strong argument that individuals shouldn’t feel obligated to do things that they are too busy for or don’t have the energy, because otherwise you run into issues of burn out or resentment. This can be an issue in specific projects as well. So it’s how you manage that too: the balance of enthusiasm versus the feeling that there is too much to do and they are feeling under pressure or worn out etc. This can be managed by being as open as possible (good communication) and by not putting pressure on people. The elders group means that there are people who can step in for particular bits of work or advice. There is a lot of informal discussion that goes on which is helpful. You are not just a single person holding responsibility.
The rotational system should mean that you don’t get long term, ingrained behaviours or patterns of interaction that affect the organization. There is a feeling that they might lose people who like more formal processes and structures.
It wasn’t anticipated as a significant turning point at the time. It felt quite minor – especially as the initiative’s scope remained unchanged and it wasn’t like becoming co-chairs of a multi-national.
With hindsight, it was a significant decision and event. If they hadn’t done it that way at that time, then it would have had an effect on the way the group operated. Hence, it has had a significant effect on the overall group in several ways.
In terms of contributing to the overall aims of TTT, it hasn’t had a direct effect, but it has been a supportive factor in helping provide a stable structure under which a range of activities can take place. Also, having had different people do it, has brought a range of different perspectives in with a significant input into the group. It doesn’t mean that the group changes direction, and there are people who have had an impact who haven’t been co-chairs, but it does mean that there is a range of different styles and approaches.
The most important lesson has been around developing a specific model of supportive leadership / shared leadership / rotated leadership have an impact on the way that groups work. That is part of the ethos of how they work now. Putting that in at the start was a good thing.
It is still relevant to TTT today because it is a core aspect of how they operate. It also enables people to keep involved in a different way.
More broadly, in reflecting back on the whole history of Transition Town Tooting, the interviewee suggested that the tipping points were tiny and incremental rather than large shifts in direction at a single point in time.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
