This is a CTP of initiative: Ecovillage Findhorn (UK)
This critical turning point started in October 1996 when the entire board of trustees of the Findhorn Foundation was resigning from their positions.
“The entire team of the Findhorn Foundation was resigning, because they felt no sign of a clear decision making and no acceptance of leadership. It was shocking for the community. Finally, the FF asked five selected people to develop a proposal for a new structure.” (Interview Robin Alfred).
The elected task force developed a plan and new structure during the following three months. First, they suggested to restructure the bodies as explained by the interviewee:
“We suggested there should be no focalizer anymore. We thought it was too much for one person to focalize the entire community. Instead, it needed a management team with a chair. Every single activity will be allocated into a clear structure. Decisions are made in the management team. Representatives from the different divisions sit in the management team” (Interview Robin Alfred).
To implement this new structure, they started a three year process of reinvention. The staffs were closely involved with the aim that they co-create and grow into the new system.
“As fundament to this new structure, we set up a reinvention process, a reinvention stream. We re-stabilized the Foundation. We have looked at the fundamentals and how the FF worked, and established different task forces, with the staff members on the different themes of “employment”, “staffing”, “values on ethics”, “identity and purpose” and others.
We implemented employees rather than members. We compiled a staff handbook and detailed employment contracts. A much more constructional framework was built up and clear procedures for work flows. We re-inspired our spiritual purpose looking at the meditation purpose and the founding ethos of the community. So far, there was a ‘personal development work department’. We established a ‘spiritual development area’ because we thought it should grow beyond the personal level, according to the intentions of this community. We said it is part of the job of Foundation staff of how people and the guests develop spiritually” (Interview Robin Alfred).
Furthermore, different options for a strategic plan for the next 20 years had been developed by the task force.
“The following scenario was chosen by almost all trustees: Findhorn Foundation is a series of semi-autonomous, independent entities (companies etc.). They should have more autonomy, nevertheless they are linked together. The picture we had was a big tanker, consisting of many little boats and sections sailing in same direction, but with own captains” (Interview Robin Alfred).
Talking to the interview about 20 years later, he told that the new structures had been realised. Looking deeper, the actual aim of the scenario – developing Findhorn Foundation as a series of semi-autonomous, independent entities – did not work out.
“I think it did not work 20years ago, because we energetically did not have the people who wanted it. It would have needed more entrepreneurial energy, and they did not want to do it, e.g. the kitchen” (Interview Robin Alfred).
It turned out, that the Findhorn Foundation could not provide a broad enough container to hold all companies that are operating under the umbrella of the Findhorn vision, and which are based in the area. “The FF appeared to not have the suitable accounting mechanism for allowing experimentation. With our ‘Findhorn consultancy’ we then became independent and gave some share back to the Foundation” (Interview Robin Alfred).
Nevertheless, ten years later the structural changes have been applied and kept. For improvement and stabilising a strategic communication plan had been worked out in 2007:
“The Foundation is managed by a Board of Trustees with day-to-day running of the Foundation delegated to the Management Team. This Management Team is mandated by co-workers to approve the annual budget and action sales and acquisitions. There is a self-selected co-worker council called FF Council which acts as a consultative body particularly around issues of strategic direction. FF co-workers are the core of the Foundation’s spiritual community, practising the founding principles of planetary transformation through personal growth and service and are vital both to the day-to-day running of the community and the care of guests.” (Findhorn Foundation Strategic Communication Plan, November 2007, internal document by Yvonne Cuneo)
Also 20 years later it is still in operation and the Foundation has improved their governance since then. Still, some issues, which will be explained under ‘learning’ will appear later in 2000 again, described in CTP No.6.
The Foundation commissioned a task force with partly external coaches to support them in a re-stucturation process.
After the entire board of the Foundation had stepped back from their positions, a reflection process within the Foundation started. In October 1996, the assembly agreed to commission a task force for re-inventing the operational structure of the Foundation.
Five coaches were asked by the FF to make proposals for the board. It was the former focalizer of the FF, an external supervisor, two long-term staff members and Robin, a business consultant who had just newly joined and moved to the Findhorn Foundation community. “We five were asked to work something out to re-invent the structure of the FF. After three months we came up with something and suggested it in the December trustee meeting” (Interview Robin Alfred).
The three years of re-invention process have been perceived as a very co-productive process between the task force as well as with and amongst the staff members. Setting up thematic groups and re-thinking the purpose acknowledged the staff and supported them in co-creating what they needed and envisioned.
1996, October, 1: Entire board of Findhorn Foundation was resigning
The initial start of the CTP was not really based on contestation but rather on a subtle chaos and ignorance. The entire team was resigning, because they felt no sign of a clear decision making and no acceptance of leadership from the community. Implementing the task force and accepting their suggestions was a very co-productive process.
When implementing the new structure several smaller conflicts appeared. The most relevant differences mentioned by the interviewee had been around an entrepreneurial attitude. The coaches thought it needed more profitable thinking to realise the scenario of developing the FF as a series of semi-autonomous, independent entities.
“A lot of good companies have been grown out of the FF. Already since the eighties, the companies became independent from the Foundation. It was a mistake of FF to sell off companies like the ‘Findhorn Press’, which are now flourishing and still located here and still profiting from the Findhorn label. Also the many B&B around FF does not pay anything back to FF, but actually mainly can exist because of the Findhorn Foundation. We have been naive how we sold things off” (Interview Robin Alfred).
The interviewee interprets a low sense of self-worth and that FF has ‘sold themselves under value’. “We felt a bit needy. We had a sense of desperation. We did not think it is a valuable business we had. We had more sense of gratitude when people buy something at all. We have been naive in this sense” (Interview Robin Alfred).
Furthermore, the interviewee sees a basic structural obstacle in the form of community for financial prosperity and for realising the scenario of a series of semi-autonomous, independent entities. “We would have needed more entrepreneurial energy. The community had developed a strong sense of feeling and belonging. Community is nice, cosy, but sooner or later you get stuck, it is a stage. The becoming energy is rather found in entrepreneurial organisations than in community” (Interview Robin Alfred).
It has been a shock and surprise for the community when the entire board of the Foundation was resigning. It was hardly anticipated. Nevertheless, after this shock, the community clearly stepped into sensible action by not only electing a new board, but understanding that there must be a structural reason. By taking responsibility, the community took this turning point seriously and invested in setting up a task force and investing finances for a professionally guided re-invention process.
Although he thinks that the scenario as wished was not completely realised, the interviewee – as active consultant in the task force – also understood the re-invention as a turning point. The management structure had been implemented and stayed similar and the Foundation in form of the new management team has improved its reputation in the community since then.
There have been several learning lessons for the interviewee form this turning point. On a broader, more general level of learning, the interviewee reflects on what have been learned and identifies aspects on how to really develop the courage to act and be the change. “Now we ask the same question like 20 years ago: how can we get to the next step from here? My hope is that we can create experiments this time to live new ways of doing and that for instance experiment with sociocracy or self-management” (Interview Robin Alfred).
The most important aspects for making this evolutionary step is seen in efforts for inner development and the will for thriving and becoming. The interviewee refers to an integral evolution of organisations (Frederic Laloux: Re-inventing organisations, 2014).
“You can never structure your evolutionary step from ‘green’ to ‘teal’ [compare Laloux 2014]. Laloux said: try out, but it is not enough: you have to have the inner base: self-worth, inner vessel, strength, you need the inner qualities to make the change: it goes back to your inner development. You have to embody it. It needs personal inner work, spiritual practice and shadow work for strengthening your vessel! Spiritual practice and development, it is not just meditation on a cushion, it is about shadow work.” (Interview Robin Alfred).
Based on individual development, the methods to work with in community have already been developed: “The collective vessels are transparent communication, inner shadow work and spiritual community – the practices are there. But: Do the people have the willingness to really do it? Regular spiritual practice and development? There is no chance to rest in this process. In Findhorn we have vibrant people, magnetized people. Visitors of Findhorn are touched, it is happening. But in communities, we need to push ourselves to grow, that is what we are not so good at” (Interview Robin Alfred).
The interviewee assumes that a consensus decision making system is limiting for taking the next step of evolution in Findhorn.
“The consensus decision making system will not allow radical change. You need leadership that draw you to the next step” (Interview Robin Alfred).
When asking, if evolutionary steps are triggered from outside, the interviewee refers to societal crises. He emphasises the necessity of creatively using crises for making an evolutionary step instead of falling into polarisation, fear and self-protection schemes.
“Evolutionary pushes from outside are there: the refugee crises, international terrorism, or climate change: it requires inner stability to resist and become strong to cope with it in an active and creative way rather than falling back to a level of fear and self-protection” (Interview Robin Alfred).
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
